The AR-15

[cmgee67]

Ladies and Gents I would like to make an off topic post that has to deal with one of the Greatest rifles ever made the AR-15. While some may freak out with what I'm about to say and you may have to hide the dog because this gun is absolutely 100% undeniably AWESOME!!!!!!!!

[Kenneth77]

I was reading a articular about the guy who first made the ar and it said that his family knew he never meant for it to be a killing machine for the general public , i think that is the dumbest thing i have heard yet on all the AR stuff .

[ScottDLS]

I was reading a articular about the guy who first made the ar and it said that his family knew he never meant for it to be a killing machine for the general public , i think that is the dumbest thing i have heard yet on all the AR stuff .

XXXXXXXEugene StonerXXXXXXXX Armalite was just developing a killing machine for the Army...not the general public, so that's why they left off the full auto on the civilian versions...

Edited for accuracy...

[Pawpaw]

Eugene Stoner did NOT design the AR-15. He designed the AR-10, but was so totally against the AR-15 project that he refused to work with the design team.

True, it was based on his AR-10 design, but saying stoner designed the AR-15 is disingenuous, at best.

[cmgee67]

What continues to blow my mind is people are demonizing a 50 year old technology. Only in the last few years have the American people started saying that it is terrible. Remember some still think the AR in AR-15 stands for assault rifle....

The rifle is not responsible for killing people. The person who shoots it is. Hands and feet kill
More a year than rifles knives five times that it's ridiculous to think that banning this firearm will solve the issue it won't. It's like saying I'm going to take away the horns from a gazelle so it can't defend itself while the cheetah murders it because it is easier now. The people in the politic world are nuts because they swore to uphold the constitution of the USA not just the parts that they agree with but ALL OF IT. LET ME SAY THAT AGAIN ALL OF IT. But sadly they won't see it that way. The second amendment was made so that us as Americans can defend our selves against tyranny. From the Government. Period. People in American have this false since of protection thinking we are safe and nothing can happen to us. Well look at Germany, Russia, Cambodia, Vietnam, China? Need I say more? Their governments disarmed them and then murdered them. That is what you get with an unarmed society.

[ScottDLS]

Eugene Stoner did NOT design the AR-15. He designed the AR-10, but was so totally against the AR-15 project that he refused to work with the design team.

True, it was based on his AR-10 design, but saying stoner designed the AR-15 is disingenuous, at best.

He was designing an even more deadly "weapon of war" in the AR-10...

[dlh]

My Bushmaster AR-15 is one of my favorite rifles. I added a flashlight and front post to it. It is a serious home-defense weapon against invading thugs.

However, I also enjoy shooting my Ruger Mini-30 Ranch Rifle and WASR AK-47.

Hillary Clinton has her eye on all of these rifles and wants to ban them badly. If she cannot get the Federal "Assault" Weapons Ban reinstituted that her husband signed into law she will certainly nominate supreme court justices intent on changing the meaning of the second amendment. Rest assured members of this group will not like the new meaning.

[Liberty]

Ladies and Gents I would like to make an off topic post that has to deal with one of the Greatest rifles ever made the AR-15. While some may freak out with what I'm about to say and you may have to hide the dog because this gun is absolutely 100% undeniably AWESOME!!!!!!!!

I don't think the people who were first issued the AR-15 in Viet Nam thought to highly of it. I was very unimpressed with the Mattel toy they handed me in Basic training and wondered why they wouldn't let us use a real gun. I will admit that they improved the jammomatic over the years. But I will never touch one again.

I will fight to the death for your right to own an AR, but I will vehemently disagree your choice.

Really though, am I the only one here who doesn't like AR-15s. I agree that that attempts to ban them are silly, They aren't even the most effective weapon for a mass shooter in a close quarter situation.

[ScottDLS]

I wonder what the recent combat vets from Iraq/Afghanistan think of the M16/M4. I trained with the M16A1 and actually used the M14 when I was in the Navy in 1980's. Navy always gets the leftovers. I didn't get to shoot the M14 on full-auto since they welded the selectors. I'm told they are all but uncontrollable without a bipod. For troops that have to carry one all day, I suspect M14 would get pretty tiresome. 7.62 NATO is great long range sighted fire, but is that the way of modern ground combat? The M4's carbine length and intermediate cartridge (5.56mm) would seem to make it easier to move/point/shoot and carry a lot more ammo. Prior to the M16 the .30 cal M1 carbine was the short rifle/carbine. .30 cal carbine is almost a pistol caliber...

[The Annoyed Man]

One of the arguments in the perpetual 9mm vs .45 debate in favor of the 9mm is that it has certainly killed more people in the last 100 years than the .45, by a significant margin......regardless of whether or not the .45 is (or is not) ballistically superior in any given scenario. Now, the .223/5.56 cartridge hasn't lived long enough to make that claim, but it is a fact that, since the M16 was first issued to troops in the field, anywhere in the world, the cartridge has killed a LOT of people. Other cartridges may be superior to the task in a given situation. The 7.62x39 is no slouch either, nor is the 7.62 NATO, or any other other .30 caliber class bottleneck battle rifle cartridges that have been used over the last 100 years. But, despite its reputation as a "poodle shooter", the 5.56 NATO cartridge still continues to put down enemy combatants in significant numbers (as does it's imitator, the 5.45x39) all over the world. Would it be my cartridge of choice for long range shooting applications? Nope. My .308s can handle that admirably. But on any given day, if I had to choose between my AR15 carbine or my SCAR 17 carbine as to which rifle I would want to carry all day and use to engage the enemy, 90% of the time I'd pick the AR. The SCAR would be my choice for a fight over open ground, with longer ranges. But given the distances that most firefights seem to take place within, the AR15 and its "puny" cartridge seems more than up to the task. I read somewhere recently that there are only two times you can have too much ammo - when you're swimming, and when you're on fire. Despite my romance with the .308 cartridge, I can carry a whole lot more 5.56 than .308.

[oljames3]

I will fight to the death for your right to own an AR, but I will vehemently disagree your choice.

Many here have taken up arms in defense of our Constitution. I agree with you on that point.

Really though, am I the only one here who doesn't like AR-15s. I agree that that attempts to ban them are silly, They aren't even the most effective weapon for a mass shooter in a close quarter situation.

You may not be "the only one here who doesn't like AR-15s." (I do appreciate your proper use of the plural rather than the possessive.) I like the AR-15 and its cousins. I was first introduced to the M-16A1 in 1973 when I joined the 1st Cavalry Division. For me, I found it to be a dependable and accurate weapon out to 250 yards. That range limitation is on me. I found the A2 to be just as dependable and accurate.

Based on my experience with the M-16A1 and A2, the AR-15 is the rifle I prefer. I know I can maintain it and use it. That's a very personal choice and one for which I have neither the requirement nor the desire to defend. I like it. You don't. Life goes on.

[RogueUSMC]

I am kind of between y'all...lol

I used the A2 in the corps. It was a tack driver at 500 yards....slow fire in the prone, I didn't miss. That being said, I was never overly impressed with the platform. The wore out rifles we were issued would shift on the pivot and takedown pins at inopportune times but that could be dealt with.

I LOVED the M1 and the M14. It took me about 5 rounds to find the black with an M1 at 1000 yards. Once I found it, I could land them 80% of the time with bore sights.

I am with TAM...depends on the environment in which the rifle is expected to be used.

If I were to choose the go into combat where I had to carry everything with me? Gimme an M16 because 1) I can hit what I want out to 500 yards with confidence, 2) I can carry a lot more of the little things that make holes in things that need holes and 3) the rifle itself is a lot lighter.

I built my first one last year. I am more impressed with the AR platform now than I was when I used the wore out M16s in the corps. The modular aspect of the platform is what has sold me on it. But the fact that I could put an AR together that everything fits nice and tight in was refreshing.

[Bitter Clinger]

One of the arguments in the perpetual 9mm vs .45 debate in favor of the 9mm is that it has certainly killed more people in the last 100 years than the .45, by a significant margin......regardless of whether or not the .45 is (or is not) ballistically superior in any given scenario. Now, the .223/5.56 cartridge hasn't lived long enough to make that claim, but it is a fact that, since the M16 was first issued to troops in the field, anywhere in the world, the cartridge has killed a LOT of people. Other cartridges may be superior to the task in a given situation. The 7.62x39 is no slouch either, nor is the 7.62 NATO, or any other other .30 caliber class bottleneck battle rifle cartridges that have been used over the last 100 years. But, despite its reputation as a "poodle shooter", the 5.56 NATO cartridge still continues to put down enemy combatants in significant numbers (as does it's imitator, the 5.45x39) all over the world. Would it be my cartridge of choice for long range shooting applications? Nope. My .308s can handle that admirably. But on any given day, if I had to choose between my AR15 carbine or my SCAR 17 carbine as to which rifle I would want to carry all day and use to engage the enemy, 90% of the time I'd pick the AR. The SCAR would be my choice for a fight over open ground, with longer ranges. But given the distances that most firefights seem to take place within, the AR15 and its "puny" cartridge seems more than up to the task. I read somewhere recently that there are only two times you can have too much ammo - when you're swimming, and when you're on fire. Despite my romance with the .308 cartridge, I can carry a whole lot more 5.56 than .308.

I would only add that the points made by TAM are what have led me to enlarging my collection. From pistol to SBR to carbine to rifle, in 5.56 and .308, you can never have enough AR's!

[RJGold]

One of the arguments in the perpetual 9mm vs .45 debate in favor of the 9mm is that it has certainly killed more people in the last 100 years than the .45, by a significant margin......regardless of whether or not the .45 is (or is not) ballistically superior in any given scenario. Now, the .223/5.56 cartridge hasn't lived long enough to make that claim, but it is a fact that, since the M16 was first issued to troops in the field, anywhere in the world, the cartridge has killed a LOT of people. Other cartridges may be superior to the task in a given situation. The 7.62x39 is no slouch either, nor is the 7.62 NATO, or any other other .30 caliber class bottleneck battle rifle cartridges that have been used over the last 100 years. But, despite its reputation as a "poodle shooter", the 5.56 NATO cartridge still continues to put down enemy combatants in significant numbers (as does it's imitator, the 5.45x39) all over the world. Would it be my cartridge of choice for long range shooting applications? Nope. My .308s can handle that admirably. But on any given day, if I had to choose between my AR15 carbine or my SCAR 17 carbine as to which rifle I would want to carry all day and use to engage the enemy, 90% of the time I'd pick the AR. The SCAR would be my choice for a fight over open ground, with longer ranges. But given the distances that most firefights seem to take place within, the AR15 and its "puny" cartridge seems more than up to the task. I read somewhere recently that there are only two times you can have too much ammo - when you're swimming, and when you're on fire. Despite my romance with the .308 cartridge, I can carry a whole lot more 5.56 than .308.

You speak truth on the ammo quantities TAM!!!

I like the AR-15 platform. I was amazed that when I bought my first one a couple of years ago, I was able to break it down and maintain it from memory even though it was 1987 when I last had my hands on an M-16. Good training from the Army!!!

I bought an M1A1 a while back too and just haven't shot it enough to fall in love with it (although I'm sure I will when I get glass on it)...

I agree with your assessment though, if I have to hump the rifle and bullets a long way or for a long time, I'll take my AR-15...

My two cents...

[C-dub]

One of the arguments in the perpetual 9mm vs .45 debate in favor of the 9mm is that it has certainly killed more people in the last 100 years than the .45, by a significant margin......regardless of whether or not the .45 is (or is not) ballistically superior in any given scenario. Now, the .223/5.56 cartridge hasn't lived long enough to make that claim, but it is a fact that, since the M16 was first issued to troops in the field, anywhere in the world, the cartridge has killed a LOT of people. Other cartridges may be superior to the task in a given situation. The 7.62x39 is no slouch either, nor is the 7.62 NATO, or any other other .30 caliber class bottleneck battle rifle cartridges that have been used over the last 100 years. But, despite its reputation as a "poodle shooter", the 5.56 NATO cartridge still continues to put down enemy combatants in significant numbers (as does it's imitator, the 5.45x39) all over the world. Would it be my cartridge of choice for long range shooting applications? Nope. My .308s can handle that admirably. But on any given day, if I had to choose between my AR15 carbine or my SCAR 17 carbine as to which rifle I would want to carry all day and use to engage the enemy, 90% of the time I'd pick the AR. The SCAR would be my choice for a fight over open ground, with longer ranges. But given the distances that most firefights seem to take place within, the AR15 and its "puny" cartridge seems more than up to the task. I read somewhere recently that there are only two times you can have too much ammo - when you're swimming, and when you're on fire. Despite my romance with the .308 cartridge, I can carry a whole lot more 5.56 than .308.

What about a 5.56 SCAR?