Its so awesome what they were able to do with this concept. A rife that was meant to be wielded around like it weighed nothing and could do everything.
Could you explain then, because I find this project lacking from a practicality standpoint. Especially when it costs $1800, and you can get cheaper rifles with more options in the same ballpark weight. As far as reliability goes, virtually and $1000 AR15, maintained properly, is reliable. This honestly feels like a cash grab by Karl and Ian because they are famous guntubers. I mean, I like their content for the most part, but they aren't the next Stoner or Browning. They are essentially 2 gun hobbyists with history degrees.
@@theodorehunter4765 You can't accuse the WWSD2020 of not being worth it's cost. As Ian said, $1800 is about what you'd pay if you bought all the parts yourself and put it together - but you are getting the benefit of having it already assembled professionally with a warranty. That's huge for many people. You're also wrong to accuse them of making a cash grab - because they never tried to build their own WWSD and sell it for several years. And they promoted other people who were building the WWSD to sell to people. The Brownells WWSD 2020 exists: 1. Because there is significant market demand for this. 2. Because GWACS went out of business, yet demand for the lower was still high, so KE Arms decided to put up the money and R&D to recreate it. Because Russell use to work for Cav Arms. He's probably the reason Ian even learned about the lower in the first place. This rifle wouldn't exist if KE Arms didn't want to build it. It has nothing to do with Ian and Karl sitting around one day deciding they want to make money by selling the WWSD rifle. They had no interest in doing that for years. And they aren't the ones doing it now either. KE Arms and Brownells are doing it.
@@theodorehunter4765 You won't find cheaper alternatives to the components they used that don't sacrifice in significant areas. They explained in detail why that is the case in their WWSD project videos. You don't understand that there is more to what makes the WWSD project what it is than simply low weight. It's low weight combined with functionality, durability, and reliability. You can't usually combine the two without more expensive materials and manufacturing processes.
@@theodorehunter4765 That's not even all that expensive. That's cheaper than most Daniel Defense rifles, and 1 or 2 thousand dollars less than a premium rifle like a Knight's or Hodge. It's not cheap, but I have built my own rifles using very similar parts, and the upper receiver with premium components are not cheap. If you put this together yourself Upper receiver ~80 BCG ~150 Gieselle charging handle ~90 Barrel ~200 Gas block ~30 Gas Tube ~10 Faxon carbon fiber tube ~330 muzzle device ~10-200 depending on what you use ~940 KE polymer lower ~90 SLT-1 trigger ~200 lower parts kit ~70 buffer and buffer spring ~60 PDQ ~70 ~490 So just parts, and I am probably missing some parts, but with that, and no warranty it is 1430, so about 1500 not including parts I have missed. For what you get that is not terribly expensive, they never claimed to be building a budget rifle. That is not their goal. Watch the video. Also, I want to be able to purchase polymer lowers that include a receiver, stock, buffer tube, and pistol grip for what you would normally pay just for the aluminum receiver all on its own. Why would it be bad for them to make some money off of that? I see nothing wrong with a return on investment.
@@worldfamousgi86 You also need to factor in the fact that they have to recoup a lot of money spent on R&D for the lower. As far as the real WWSD project goes the lower is the main component of interest, and it is being sold at a very good price. I think the complete rifle being sold is kind of pointless. It looks like a good rifle, but that's all it is. It lacks a real market niche because it isn't cheap enough to be a nice basic option for people getting in to ar15s, and most people who would be looking for a lightweight rifle in the $1700 range will be experienced enough to build their own rifle (likely using the WWSD lower) to their own specific tastes. It could excel in the varmint rifle market, and the hunting rifle market, but it's marketing isn't on point for either of those markets. To sell it as a varmint rifle they should place more emphasis in their marketing on the ruggedness of its construction, and frame its weight in the context of carrying it long distances in the wild, rather than its weight as a continuation of Stoner's goals for a military rifle. The same points go for marketing it as a semi automatic hunting rifle, with the addition that it is chambered in a round that is unethical for hunting deer, pigs, and black bear. I think its biggest problem comes down to being sold as a tacticool gun when it isn't. They could have alleviated this issue pretty easily by adjusting their marketing to focus more on its use as a sporting rifle, and making it a 6mm, or 6.5mm gun. It would have become a viable hunting rifle, still been a great option for varmints, and by being a lightweight production rifle in a cartridge other than 5.56mm it would have gained some amount of tacticool appeal by being the only lightweight production rifle in its calibre. TL;DR: The WWSD rifle could be a great varmint rifle, and with a different round be a great hunting rifle. Its problem is being marketed as a tacticool rifle that isn't tacticool.
I had no clue what this project was until this video, and now I'm extremely intrigued. My only concern would be how would it hold up to Arizona heat but I'm sure InrangeTVs already going to have that covered on release
Apparently if you permanently affix a rib that connects the bottom of the pistol grip with the stock, you're set (as far as the pistol grip concern goes ofc, but I assume that's the big one. )
@@SolidMikeP Not if the gun isn't on the California approved list of weapons. You should know what you are talking about before you give people advice.
@@jrowinski82 That only applies to handguns there is no approved roster of rifles in the state of california. You can pre order the lower as is and have it shipped to your local ffl no problem. Full rifles would have to have the muzzle device changed and a grip attached. Im curious where you got the idea that theres a list of california approved weapons. I cant seem to find anyone talking about anything even remotely similar to that accept for the handgun roster which has the word handgun in the title.
Carbon fiber barrels are much more expensive. it's $200 vs $600. Nothing stopping you from buying the parts individually and assembling one with a carbon fiber barrel though.
@@alexhowe639 Prices are crazy now because of asshole gougers, but I paid $1,350 for my Daniel Defense DDM4 pistol, $1,250 for a Daniel Defense DDM4V9 rifle, I was looking at a POF 415 that was around $1,800. My Sig MPX was $1,500 and my Sig MCX Rattler was $2,300. You could buy a new Colt for way less, and a older Colt for around $1,700. For a little more you can get a Noveske Afghan or Noveske Infidel. Those are just a few options. Oh, the DDM4 PDW is another great option around the same price as this gun or even a MK18.
Yeah all of these mods they did shaved off one pound. Not exactly alot. Considering my issued M4A1 with an ACOG, PEQ, and loaded 30 round mag weighs 9 pounds, and this one would weigh 8 pounds outfitted the sane, it's not earth shattering.
@@jrowinski82 Oh f*ck, i just realized i forgot to put a "Not". I'm all for iron sights either fixed or backup. I was kinda wondering why so many people like to not have them, but i guess i got my answer.
Not off the shelf. But you could buy a 20 inch barrel and stick it on the rifle. I believe when they started they started with a short barrel and a long barrel and settled on the thing in-between as it served they purposes
I've never seen an 18 pound AR15. My issued M4A1, with ACOG, 30 round loaded mag, and PEQ15 weighs less than 9 pounds. Not exactly a "bohemoths" This gun outfitted the same would be 8 pounds
That one pound can make a difference on a march Edit: And I think the 18 pounds comes from people adding heavy barrels rails everywhere, C Mags and all sorts of attachments
@@flightlesschicken7769 Except the rate of fire for this gun is way lower. This wouldn't stand up to shooting 3 to 4 mags a minute, which a military rifle is required to do. I'd rather save weight on the machineguns. 9 pound 5.56, and 13 pound 7?62 belt feds are technologically feasable nowadays.
@@theimmortal4718 the original AR was not designed for suppressive fire and neither is this, as it is trying to capture the spirit of the original AR. I've seen them demonstrating this thing working fine after multiple mag dumps in full auto. They say the group size opens up but the zero doesn't shift. They also said they have some small scale military trials they plan to enter them in. It will be interesting to see how that goes Also, it's more than just lighter, supposedly the weight distribution is better making it feel lighter in the hand.
@@flightlesschicken7769 Yeah I've seen all of that. The move is toward heavier barrels for sustained fighting. I like the fully ambi controls and the chromed bolt carrier.
@@ctford27 I've ridden the hype since the wwsd2017 rifle. I might just have to sell my BCM to buy the wwsd2020. But I'm on the fence since my BCM is only 5oz heavier.. Conflicted
Cool concept, but give me a standard AR platform with all of its 'heavy' aluminum and thicker barrel, I don't recall ever complaining about humping around an M16 with full load out. To each his own.
reven never what he is talking about is that the AR started as this beautiful thing and some people/companies started adding shit on something that just works. The advancements in plastics since the sixties is amazing also the showed that the plastic was more durable than aluminum
reven never the polymer lower isn’t meant to just combat weight. As Karl mentioned, a polymer lower could flex and return to its original state while an aluminum receiver bent after being ran over by a truck. Also, there is no advantage to having the A2 government profile barrel. The added material is in all the wrong places to properly stiffen the barrel and sink heat. The whole point of the WWSD project is to accomplish what Stoner had originally envisioned for the AR-10 and AR-15. That being a lightweight service rifle that takes advantage of the technology of the day.
The other issue (according to a few InRange and ForgottenWeapons videos I've watched) is that they don't KNOW what the result will be; rather, the idea was to get as lightweight a gun as possible, and then give it to people to see what happens. If it just ends up being a solid lighweight gun that's easy to carry? OK, sounds good. Does the light weight nature allow for even faster reaction times in drills and/or competition? Do people end up putting more stuff on it as a consequence? Etc. In many ways, this is an experiment: a "what if..." sort of question that leads to possible use cases that haven't been thought of yet.
raiden z I personally don’t see what qualifies it as a "fancy range toy", it ultimately is just another option for those who want a lightweight AR (plus it’s pretty inexpensive compared to some of the alternatives). Also, I feel that Karl and Ian elaborated that the goal of the WWSD project wasn’t to achieve the latest and greatest in their original 2017 videos.
@Dan I do know, which there's variation depending on the set up on how it runs then suppressed vs unsuppressed, etc. Which these guns are made to milspec, the only difference being this is made of polymer instead, and you get an A1 length stock as well as ambi controls out of the box. Which they've done a few tests such as 1,000 rounds on full auto through one, using it for push-ups and pull-ups, running it over twice with a bronco, and hitting it against a wooden pillar as if you were striking someone with the buttstock, which it survived and did not have any structural damage to any part of the lower. The only part that was damaged was the handguard after it got ran over the 2nd time, which any handguard will be damaged after that. They then took the same one that got damaged and ran it in a 2 gun match, and it performed fine with no loss of accuracy and no malfunctions. Sullivan has credit in the design yes, but it is ultimately Stoners design. Now I have a question for you, what purpose does this rifle seem to serve?
Why are people complaining about the weight? All Ar’s I pick up, unless they have ungawdly amounts off accessories are pretty light. I had a DPMS Oracle with a scope and back up sights and it was pretty light. Am I missing something here?
Nobody is complaining about it, but why not make a modern version of what the rifle was intended to be? If you can shave weight without sacrificing durability and reliability it's a good improvement. Plus gives other manufactures a push to start innovating rather than making the same cookie cutter AR.
The idea of the project is to bring the weight down so low that when you add optics,lights, slings, grips your under 6 pounds. MAXIMIZE MODERN TEC within stoners philosophy of a 6lb gun.
The idea is that even as materials and technology have gotten better, successive generations of the rifles have gotten heavier. "Heavier" as in comparison to the original design, not as in the guns are actually "heavy". They aren't claiming this is the correct design or best for competition/combat/wombat hunting, rather that it's more in the spirit of what the original team was trying to accomplish. Hence, "what would Stoner do."
Great idea. But 5.7 lbs is still pretty heavy for a pencil barrel, polymer lower and carbon fiber handguard. We've seen similar projects like the MOA Enyo go down to 3 pounds. Arguably more expensive and less functional than this, but still. I could put my Savage MSR with thiccc barrel on a diet and get it down to that number...
This project is what would stoner do not make the gun as light as possible it’s to be light as can be functionally and reliability possible and rethinking the ar15/m16 platform as it was intended to be a light handy reliable rifle
Those rifles exchange reliability though. The WWSD uses a full weight BCG, and adds extra ambidextrous controls (,there is your 7oz). Also if you just get the new $150 MK lower GI internals, you can build your own upper, mine comes in at 47 OZ, puts my WWSD prospect at 5lbs even.
@Michael I built my WWSD rifle for less than $700. The fact that you're calling the Cav arms lower an unproven "plastic" lower, shows your ignorance sir. This lower is STONGER & 1 LB lighter than an M4 aluminum lower and designed from the ground up to be polymer. The Gen 3 should be even stronger. And who on Earth would ever want a compensator on a combat rifle? You really want a billowing flame that screams "hi I'm over here shoot me" at night ?... BCM makes a quality product. But with a wrench and a vise I could put together a 5 lb fighting dream machine for $700.
@Michael Most of the weight is in the bcg and the buffer. That's why other rifles have gotten down to 7oz. You can probably take the WWSD2020 down to those ranges as well
Most people will buy the lower and build it to their own liking. No need to pay $1800 for a rifle based on a over rated 2 gun shooter...Not meant as an insult, just reality...
