Someone should make an upgraded version where that tube on the back goes inside the grip or something.That tube prevents someone from making a version wiht a foldable shoulder stock.
>>65330629
>>65330629>Someone should make an upgraded version where that tube on the back goes inside the grip or something.They did that before you were even born. It has failed like four different times under four different companies because nobody cares, actually. Every few years someone new buys the rights to the LR300, makes it for like a month, and then goes out of business.Folding stocks are a meme. They seem like the coolest shit on earth until you get one, then you realize you never use it.
>>65330798>It has failed like four different times under four different companies because nobody cares,Which is a shame because the LR-300 is objectively better than the AR-15
>>65330867Nah, not at all.Pros:>the stock folds :DCons:>the folding stocks all suck>unreliable>changing barrel length ranges from impractical to impossible>can't adjust buffer weight since there isn't one, makes tuning the gun impossible>heats up incredibly fast, much worse than an AR-15It has one advantage that is only useful for like, I don't know. Stuffing the gun in a backpack? Who cares? And in return it's a piece of crap that doesn't work, and functions worse than a $300 AR.
>>65330901>unreliableBut it's still a DI AR-15?
>>65330922Yes, that's right.
>>65330927Then the reliability should be more or less the same as normal AR-15, right?
>>65330959No, because reliability has to do with a lot more than just "is there a piston or not" and frankly having to write that makes me question your sanity. Changing the entire return mechanism does change how a gun functions.Just changing buffer weight can dramatically change function in an AR-15, this is far more drastic.
>>65330629They did.
>>65330964Thank you, I'm still learning.And talk about reliability, what do you think about piston AR-15 compare to DI AR-15?
Didn't they make a folding buffer tube stoc^H^H^Hbrace where you just can't fire it when it's folded or it explodes in your face?
>>65330989>And talk about reliability, what do you think about piston AR-15 compare to DI AR-15?The majority are worse than standard AR-15s. The HK416 is an exception. It still has drawbacks.>stronger recoil impulse>increased weight>basically identical reliability>I guess it's slightly better with a suppressor but rip off more than two rounds and you're still getting gassed>>65330992Adds like a pound to the gun for the latch mechanism and further exacerbates the problem of "nobody actually likes folding stocks"
>>65330798>Folding stocks are a meme. They seem like the coolest shit on earth until you get one, then you realize you never use it.I hate to say it but this is correct. It's kind of like a folding bicycle. It sounds cool, but the number of applications where that's the best solution is pretty damn small actually.
>>65331007I think I'd be useful for vehicle crews and paratroopers, but not much for civilians.
>>65331007>>65330798You are thinking about it as an end-user. Folding stocks make sense for shipping thousands of guns in a smaller space for logistics. It's a choice made by military procurement, not by soldiers.
>>65331001Folding brace, you mean
>>65331030Folding stocks are for stowing guns in IFVs
>>65331007Yeah. The problem is for civilians there is literally just one use case.>I want to stuff this in a backpackAnd then you get to of course asking why>uh so I can carry my rifleOk so now you have to retrieve it from the bag and unfold it, you will literally never use this, in any scenario. You'll either have time to draw your EDC pistol or die.In any other scenario, even stuffing it into a range bag, the folding stock just makes more bulk, not less, and makes shit harder, not easier. In the one scenario it has value, the gun is useless since you can't actually get it out of the bag and unfolded fast enough to be viable for self defense. If you insist on doing it you're just a dorky grown ass man walking around with a backpack and two guns. Dweeb behavior. Might as well carry a katana at that point.for military uses I guess like that's cool for tankers or whatever, if you want to pretend the M4 is too big go ahead.>>65331030Wrong. There is only one (1) stock that does this, and it's the underfolder. Nobody uses the underfolder because it sucks. Your stock folded adds bulk, meaning less guns fit in a crate. Making a crate longer is no big deal, especially when an M4 with a collapsed stock isn't even long. Making it wider is a big deal.>>65331034No I mean folding stock, what kind of retarded nigger uses a brace? It's not even a poor issue anymore, tax stamps are literally free.
>>65330629Just buy another gun instead.>>65330798>Folding stocks are a meme.They make sense to me for particularly compact weapons. Like, you'll want a folding stock on an MP9 or MP5k because it's supposed to be small, so being able to store it even smaller is useful there.They are not that important for rifles.>>65330867No, the LR300 is actually colossally shitty and worse than the AR15 in every way but the ability to have a folding stock, which is why the companies go out of business, and why people continue to buy normal AR15s instead.>>65330959Do you actually understand the LR300s design?
>>65330978>Sig Saar>MCX
>>65331001>>I guess it's slightly better with a suppressor Not even, you get piston-pop with piston guns, so they're louder.For a regular AR15, you can use a deflecting charging handle and adjustable gas block.>>65330992There was at least one kit you could add to common AR15s which made the buffer assembly foldable, and the way it was advertised was that it'd allow you to fire ONE (1) shot when it was folded, and that this would break a wear part or something to protect the rest of the gun, and you'd need to replace it after.If you badly want a foldy 5.56mm, then look at the BRN180, it'll at least not look dogshit if you put a folding stock on it.>>65331029American vehicle crew don't suffer from it.
>>65331272Use your words, Kevin. Or no snack time.
>>65331001No 416s are notably more reliable than standard DI M4s, at least in the testing the military conducted. They’re about as reliable as the SCAR, maybe a tiny bit less so. But whether that’s really worth an extra thousand dollars? That’s where it gets tricky to justify lmao
the year was nineteen hundred and ninety three.
>>65330798This guy knows.
>>65331471Why dignify Siggers with a long winded post?
>>65332220I didn't post an MCX. I posted an MCX Spear, which specifically addressed that nonissue. Optics don't go on the handguard.You still haven't given a reason why you're sperging.
>>65332449>Optics don't go on the handguardBeamz do.
>>65332449>Optics don't go on the handguardYeah, they go in the bin because Sig's optics are shit.>You still haven't given a reason why you're sperging.Pistonslop and jeet manufacturing.
>>65332470>Yeah, they go in the bin because Sig's optics are shit.Nah, the Sig 4t pro is good.
>>65332470All of Sig's nonchink optics are top tier, noguns.Fucking steam is coming out of your ears and you can't even elucidate why.>>65332452Beamz get fired without even a cheek weld, accuracy is not a top priority for 70 yard darktime shooting.
>>65332481if your shit is that deflected at 70 yards you're gonna be shooting 7 yards off target easy.
>>65332488It's not that deflected, watch a video about it. The handguards were bendable, they're exerting the maximum force of an adult male body on the handguard with the other hand on the barrel to intentionally tweak it as far as possible. It didn't come out of the box like that. Yeah that it can even be tweaked is retarded but this is mountain out of a molehill shit about a gun that's out of production.
>>65332481>All of Sig's nonchink optics are top tierIs that why the special NGSW optic just doesn't actually work?
>>65332691...That's not made by Sig. Are you retarded?
>>65332691Is that a Sig optic, you fucking idiot?
>>65332704>>65332714Oh, my bad! That one's not their fault, then.
>>65332691>>65332722>i've never had any idea what i was talking aboutWe know. Not sure why you're still replying.
>>65331267>No, the LR300 is actually colossally shitty and worse than the AR15 in every way but the ability to have a folding stock, which is why the companies go out of businessNo, they go out of business because nobody knows the LR300 exists except people who played stalker, to a lesser extent rust and urban terror, or singularly are a tripfag who hasn't posted in 17 years. Secondly, the LR300 was 2 grand in 2001, which was a ruinous amount of money for an AR; and the para ordnance second attempt cost even more in the late 2000s, which was still a lot of money by then. Whether the LR300 is or isn't a good gun is entirely incidental, nobody ever gets that far because they have either never heard of it or aren't willing to pay the MSRP.
>>65332837If it was good, people would know about it.
>>65332848Bullshit, quality has nothing to do with it. The LR300 is contemporary with the LMT upper, and nobody knew that existed for over a decade. Its only by OEMing parts for other manufacturers that LMT were able to stay afloat until people were in a position to give a shit, while ZM had a single product and didn't last.
>>65332856LMT upper sucks ass
>>65332861I don't care, nonetheless it was considered good at one point, and that was many years after it was initially released; point being that something being good has no bearing on market reach.
>>65332866false
>>65332870Completely factual and accurate, only disputed by people with brown skin and small penises.
>>65332874>factualfalse>accuratefalse>brown skinfalse
>>65332876But you agree with small penis?
>>65332878yeah that one is true
>>65332880This anon is the clear winner of that exchange so I'll take it for a fact that lmt uppers are good.
>>65330629Get a Dead Foot MCS and fuck off.
>>65330629>Someone should make an upgraded version where that tube on the back goes inside the grip or something.My man.
>>65330798Based as fuck
>>65331046>Ok so now you have to retrieve it from the bag and unfold it, you will literally never use this, in any scenario. You'll either have time to draw your EDC pistol or die.Who the fuck is using a self-defense rifle? Putting it in a bag means fewer maintenance worries. There. You can take it out with you wherever you need and unfold it whenever you want. Pistol/rifle combo setup with no hassle.
>>65335401>Who the fuck is using a self-defense rifle?Nobody, hence folding guns being a meme.>Putting it in a bag means fewer maintenance worries. Okay, then put a normal rifle in a normal rifle bag. Problem solved. Even if you have tism and need to stuff an AR in a gym bag, pop the two little pins and separate the upper and lower. Problem solved. Folding stocks do not actually help storage (with an AR-15, or most any sidefolder)
>>65335545>complete rifle in any bag that only needs to be unfoldedvs>a rifle that needs to be broken down for convenient storagevs>big rifle in a big bag
>>65335562Yes, that's right. Since as you said, nobody does this for self defense, there's no point in stowing the rifle in fireable condition, so none of that matters.
It's called the SCAR
