site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of May 20, 2024

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.

8
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

It's a minor thing, but I wonder about the coding of AK-pattern rifles (this case) versus AR types. I know right-leaning folks who own AK patterns, but every example of the right bringing guns to a protest seems to prefer ARs. I assume the American-designed AR is more 'patriotic' than a foreign platform? The AK specifically has all sorts of 'adversary' connotations.

But I suspect there are some here far more familiar with the thinking.

The AR is the American gun. Domestic design, often domestic manufacture. Long history as our service rifle. Strong competition for making both weapons and ammunition.

There’s also a “build your own” factor which gets more people into the ecosystem. This is exemplified by the common top rail, which makes it much cheaper and easier to mount all sorts of optics. But it extends to the stock, handguard, more or less every part. Combined with the hordes of manufacturers, and any gun show becomes a flood of garish polymer customizations and overpriced accessories. While such things are available for the AK, the market is much smaller.

As a mottizen put it, the AR-15 is the Wayne Gretzky of guns.

Are you familiar with Brandon Herrera? I don't think there's any connotation there. AKs used to be the "cheap" option, now they're sorta exotic/cool and impractical, but still generally beloved. ARs are slowly pushing them toward extinction, along with all other species of automatic rifle.

Have any of the non-AR successor platforms taken off? Last news I heard was Germany (partially?) ditching their replacement to go AR. Did the IAR project for the Marines ever happen, or did it get shelved to buy them more anti-ship missiles?

As far as AR alternatives out on the market, I think most only have any success in their country of manufacture (examples: VHS-2, Howa Type 20, MSBS), and any country without enough of a home industry to draw on (e.g. France) will probably just buy AR-15s, HK 416s, or maybe CZ Bren 2s.

I think most only have any success in their country of manufacture

Yeah, because they're hilariously overpriced. When you can buy 6 ARs for the cost of one (in the VHS-2's case) and it's only marginally better it's not a surprise they aren't flying off the shelves.

People give HK shit all the time for this but all the European manufacturers do it with their military rifles (Beretta and CZ are better than average, or at least Beretta would be if they actually still sold the ARX-160). Sure, that strategy works in Europe where AR-15s cost just as much or more than the indigenous options, but expecting that to apply everywhere?

Oh, Beretta abandoned the ARX? I know they have the NARP now (surprise, it's an AR!), I didn't realize they had given up on the ARX.

Have any of the non-AR successor platforms taken off?

Not to my knowledge. I think the Army is still claiming they're gonna retire the m4 and standardize on Spears, but I'll believe it when I see it. There was a really good writeup I found once, talking about the "Glockpocalypse" that wiped out like 90% of variation in the handgun market, as everyone gave up on their bespoke designs in favor of various flavors of Glock clone. The Glock 17 was just straight-up better, cheaper, more durable, more reliable, and most previous designs simply couldn't compete. The AR15 has done pretty much the same thing, both because it's an amazingly good design, and because it hit critical mass such that the design has been perfected to an absurd degree as a result of network effects. At this point, it's hard to imagine it ever going away, or why there would even be competing designs in another few decades.

Did the IAR project for the Marines ever happen, or did it get shelved to buy them more anti-ship missiles?

Last I heard they were still gonna get IARs, but those were going to be piston AR derivatives from H&K.

At this point, it's hard to imagine it ever going away, or why there would even be competing designs in another few decades.

The only real thing wrong with the AR is that it doesn't lend itself as well to mass production (read: aluminum/plastic extruded upper, polymer lower) as the AR-18-based designs, and that if you're on a rifle replacement schedule that exceeds 50 years, you want a gun with slightly-beefed-up parts whose wear surfaces you can change out so that you don't have to do what the US does and replace bolts every 10,000 rounds because getting any kind of military spending in most Western countries is like pulling teeth.

Which is why all the modern rifles that kind-of-but-not-really compete with the AR all do the things that you'd do to an AR if you weren't constrained by its existing design, like:

  • Replaceable cam tracks (that part held in by external screws on the top left side of the Spear; that's internal on the SCAR and Brens) and stopping the cam pin from being driven into the receiver (which happens on the AR)
  • Bigger bolt, which means it stops being as much of a wear part like it is on US Military ARs; also allows for a better extractor and a more long-lasting spring within
  • Making the upper an aluminum extrusion, and attaching the stock to the upper rather than the lower so it can't break off (which lets you make the lower a polymer extrusion); ARs can crack their upper receivers at the threads holding the barrel nut on at high round counts and these guns won't do that (traditional-style AKs eventually develop similar cracking problems at the front trunnion, as it bends there every time you fire)

And then the tactical considerations, which is that because these guns are a bit heavier up front, they can stand up to more use as ersatz automatic rifles; as far as I'm aware, you can dump your entire combat load in one sitting without destroying the gun or making it catch on fire (it'll sure cook your hands, though; hope you brought gloves!). If your nation is small, why not just give everyone slightly heavier RPK-equivalents so they're still perfectly serviceable in 50 years?

The HK416 is notable in that it does literally none of these things. Granted, it was the first real attempt to make the AR-15 a serious automatic rifle, but it fails to improve in any way on the original design and even makes some problems worse (it's heavier and the carrier tilts; contrast the MCX, which is a significantly better design).

Oh yeah: foreign manufacturers could always get development on their rifle platforms too, if they felt like passing the savings onto the customer (and actually commit- Beretta actually sold the ARX-160 at a very reasonable price, and that was even before hyper-light rifles were made cool again, but none of the other promised features materialized). But they won't.