I’d be interested to see if anyone can prove/disprove.

nice post!

It’s a funny thing about military stuff. In some ways, it’s a lot hardier and more rugged than it used to be, and sometimes it’s not.
Which brings up a whole ‘nother set of problems with logistics. Say, take handheld GPS. By the time you get it issued to everybody, the manufacturer has a new model out, faster, better, cheaper.

At one point, I worked at a supercomputer facility, and one of the jokes/truisms they’d relate to you when you came in was “If you’ve got a project that will take you 4 years to solve with today’s computers, don’t do anything for 2 years. 2 years in, buy the computers, they’ll be more than twice as fast, they’ll be cheaper than right now, and you’ll be done ahead of time”

The opposite issue is faced by the vehicles – which are in service far longer than ANYBODY would have expected by ‘03 Springfield or Garand standards. Heck, I’ve heard the P-51 was built with the expectation that it would only be flying an average of 120 days in combat areas.

But, while we’re on the subject, and though it does detract from your point, let us all bow our heads and give thanks to JMB. There is but one designer, and Cooper is his prophet. Lest we forget the longest serving *weapon system* is the M1919 Machine gun.

But many of the AR proponents I know will toss up the longevity issue – despite the fact that the AR system is nowhere near as rugged, and individual guns have been wholesale replaced (as opposed to IRAN (Inspect and Repair/Replace as Needed)) that the Garands (and now the M-14s) stayed in service with.

(I just don’t know how you ever get used to the Slinky getting *poinged* next to your head with the AR! )

But none of them are as draconian as the laws relating to gun ownership.

Owning and using a car is not enumerated in the Constitution.
Yet we have way more freedom and way more *rights* in relation to our auto than we do firearms. And vehicles can be just as useful – and just as dangerous – as a firearm.

One of the reasons autos have evolved as they have is because people were free to tinker with their personal property without the FedGov interfering. It just boggles my mind that I am legally allowed to add nitrous to a car and give it 500 horsepower in my garage, but I can’t put a sound reducer on my firearm. (I live in Michigan.) I could go on, but I think you get my point.

I’m going to go smash and break things now.

To be correct, I think you mean the M-14.

Yes, the AR-design has been in service as the frontline rifle longer than any other. That’s right, but the reasons are far more complex than the mere design.
First: the actual *rifles* are changed out often. The M-16 begat the A1, which begat the A2, which begat the A3, which begat the A4 and the M4A2… There aren’t any rifles in frontline service that are 40 years old. Most, I understand, are under 5. There’s a churn, if you will, of new ones coming in and old ones going out. (even with the same “mod”). If you count the mod as a “new gun”, the track record isn’t as good.
The M-14 shows back up every time we get in a serious shooting war, amazingly enough. (not so much to some of us) Now most groups in the thick of things in Iraq appear have at least 1 (in a way, replicating the WWII, Garand and BAR distribution, which ironically enough, the M-14 was supposed to “solve”).
The AR was adopted largely because of politics. Political pork, Pentagon infighting, technological worship… and that’s persisted with the rifle up to today. Now, replacements face the same problem as the .276 Peterson faced in ‘36 in the Garand. There’s so much ammo in the supply line, so many armorers who need to be retrained, new tooling, new procedures, that it’s easier to perpetuate the AR line with minor adjustments than to make a major shift.
Which was the Army and Marine’s rationale for not adopting the AR during the Vietnam build-up. Overridden by lots of politics, wishful thinking, and desire for “progress”.
Plus, you always have the internal Pentagon politics. After vietnam, we were hardly going to spend a lot to build a new rifle. It wasn’t until Reagan in the 80s, that the military started to improve it’s hardware from the ruin that had befallen it – and the “fixes” for the AR were brand new, no reason to change now, when we can just make minor changes. (Not soley restricted to the AR family, the M-14 was adopted largely because of a … strongly implied rationale (that Springfield Armory (not the current gun company) knew better, but.. failed to explain/clarify that M-14s could be produced with the same machinery/factories as the M-1 Garand, without major changes.)
During the 80s, no major shooting occured. Even the “First” Gulf War resulted in few infantry battles. Basically, this is the first prolonged exposure to combat the AR has faced since Vietnam. And the results of that are causing a lot of rethinking in some areas, a lot of entrenchment in others, and the usual politics are settling in. The Air Force insists there is no *need* for a new rifle, after all, Air Power is the way to go, no need for infantry. (This is a common thought, and oft-disproved, (just ask the RAF’s “Bomber” Harris) but that’s a whole ‘nother long rant). There’s some resistance to any change under combat conditions. And there’s some resistance to admitting that there’s a *problem*. After all, who wants to admit that they sent troops into harms way ill-prepared and with inferior equipment? (This is seperate and different from the “up-armoring humvee’s discussion, but most anti-Bush people would conflate the two, erroneously).
The only “politically correct” way to fix this was.. the M-14. And in Afghanistan, the Marines quickly de-mothballed, and rushed theirs to the front. The Army wasn’t very far behind, and now you notice the proliferation of M-14’s in pictures from the front. Just last weekend, chatted with a friend who’s son has been in Iraq about a month, and he said that basically, they’d asked who was familiar with the M1 Garand/M1A at one point, and most of the “gun nuts” raised their hand, and they’ve been given M-14s, and quick briefings on care and feeding of said rifle) (Also, that a highly touted, civilian aftermarket stock had been issued, broke on a regular basis, and they’re back to walnut, with home-drilled weaver mounts for tac-lights and duct tape for cheekpieces. )

Sorry for the nit-pick. The general gist of your point remains, and is correct. The civilian aftermarket is why the AR *is* as successful as it is. “Aftermarket” mods came out first in the civilian world, and have been adopted in huge numbers. (This also has some downsides, again, another story). Even the M-14 is succeeding because of the huge amount of people like myself who have them, scoped them. Scope mounts, new stocks, cheekpieces, cleaning supplies, all of which were proofed in the civilian market, and were available *immediately* when they were needed (even if some ways bent or broke procurement rules).
What else do you need to say, but “Barrett .50″? Created soley for the civilian market, and adopted by the Army when they saw what it could do.

For some, shutting down the most productive testbed, forcing it all into the halls of the Pentagon and lunches with congressional lobbyists would be a good thing. I submit, you’d be hard pressed to find anybody on the sharp end who thinks that.