Ban AK 15

[The_Patriot21]

6 minutes ago, Teditis said:

You're just wrong again... the military doesn't give the manufacture a specific designator. 

AR is for military purposes... give it up Pat, you're out of your league... again

 

 

actually Teditis, you can see plainly, that not only am I right, I backed it up. All you are doing, by continuing this, is to make yourself, and other gun owners, look foolish. In fact, I would dare say you are anti-gun from your lack of knowledge about the weapon, as is evidenced not only by the blatantly incorrect information, as well as you feeling the need to go personal.

And your right, the military doesnt give the gun manufacturer a specific designator, the manufacturer does. Armalite named their rifle the AR-15. Colt, when they redesigned it renamed it the M16. Colt did that, not the military.  The AR-15 did see very limited use in vietnam, almost enough to be non-existent. Armalite was not able to market it to the military like Colt was able to. The design however, has been ever popular on the civilian market. Look, another link proving where you are incorrect. https://www.npr.org/2018/02/28/588861820/a-brief-history-of-the-ar-15

Edited October 30, 2018 by The_Patriot2018

[Guest Teditis]

1 minute ago, The_Patriot2018 said:

actually Teditis, you can see plainly, that not only am I right, I backed it up. All you are doing, by continuing this, is to make yourself, and other gun owners, look foolish. In fact, I would dare say you are anti-gun from your lack of knowledge about the weapon, as is evidenced not only by the blatantly incorrect information, as well as you feeling the need to go personal.

And your right, the military doesnt give the gun manufacturer a specific designator, the manufacturer does. Armalite named their rifle the AR-15. Colt, when they redesigned it renamed it the M16. Colt did that, not the military.  The AR-15 did see very limited use in vietnam, almost enough to be non-existent. Armalite was not able to market it to the military like Colt was able to. The design however, has been ever popular on the civilian market. Look, another link showing where you are incorrect. https://www.npr.org/2018/02/28/588861820/a-brief-history-of-the-ar-15

Your still wrong Pat, despite your length of words. AR simply does not designate a weapon as an ArmaLite weapon... it's for Army Regulated weapons.

That's clear-cut in historical facts. It's a military designation... not a manufacturer designation. Learn your military SOP. ArmaLite did not

rename the weapon after they improved it's design... they merely used the military's designator in further discussions.

And again. I'm not going personal on you Pat... I simply don't have any feelings about your being wrong on this subject, I'm just passing time

on the computer here. I just get irked a little bit at disinformation... like you're giving here. You try to pass yourself off as some sort of expert on

guns... and you merely don't know as much as you think. See, I've dealt with AR-15 and M-16's first-hand... asked professionals questions about them.

You have blogs off the internet... so much gossip, see? ArmaLite did not give the designator AR-15 to the weapon, the Gov't did. You see, it did not conform

to Army rules and regulations until the Army deemed it so. This is all documented fact!!!

So quit saying that I'm making it personal (attacks)… you always do that whenever someone disagrees with you. You slander people and should be reported for

it all. (but I know that your Mod friends would just side with you because you're vociferous.) Quit slandering me when the document facts are all clear cut, please.

In my opinion you're just trying to save face as the defacto Worthy gun expert regardless that documented facts fly in your face. You're not the only one who's

handle weapons before... I'm secure in the knowledge that I have way more experience with guns than you'll ever have. They've been not only a part of my

personal life, but my professional life as well. How do go against my professional knowledge of AR-15's with combat soldiers, where you have no such

experience? See, I actually KNOW people that used them in combat situations… you again have internet blogs. Who do you think I'm going to trust given

those two situations? You? HA! I give credit to where it's due... committed soldiers who used the AR-15 on the front-lines. They told me about it's inherent
positive and negative aspects. So I have know doubts what-so-ever that you are simply misinformed.

You're simply uninformed about the history of this weapon and that doesn't upset me... many people go through life devoid of understanding... it's a joke

really that people have a platform to voice ignorance in a public forum like this, unchecked. But I guess that I need to get used to it.

[other one]

1 hour ago, The_Patriot2018 said:

that could be to. frame wise, they are essentially the same weapon, where they differ is in the trigger and bolt assembly. I think the m16 has a slightly thicker upper receiver to, but its not enough where youd notice to the naked eye.

it is, but all  5.56 chambered is thicker....  I just assumed that my ar-15 has a m16 barrel.   may be wrong.

[Sower]

 

36 minutes ago, Teditis said:

Your still wrong Pat, despite your length of words. AR simply does not designate a weapon as an ArmaLite weapon... it's for Army Regulated weapons. 

The AR-5, 1955

 

You  may want to read an article other than wiki.  ( 1954-ArmaLite was founded as a division of Fairchild Engine and Aircraft Corporation. While most people equate the AR 15 Rifle with military variants, the company was actually founded with the goal of developing civilian market guns using modern materials and manufacturing technologies)  Read below;

This article explains the AR designation, and history......... "ArmaLite Rifle"
      copy/paste
https://www.ammoland.com/2016/04/ar-15-rifle-historical-time-line/#axzz5VRoMe93x

 

James Fallows

5:41 PM / November 12, 2017

More on the Military and Civilian History of the AR-15

Joshua Roberts / Reuters

This past Tuesday Dean Winslow, a medical doctor and retired Air Force colonel who had deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan as a flight surgeon, appeared before the Senate Armed Services committee. It was considering his nomination as the Trump administration’s assistant secretary of defense for health affairs.

At the hearing, Senator Jean Shaheen, a Democrat of New Hampshire, asked Winslow about mental-health issues in the military—and specifically about the shooter in the Sutherland Springs massacre, who had been courtmartialed and given a bad-conduct discharge by the Air Force for offenses that included threatening people with guns.

Winslow answered that question, and then volunteered a view that would have gotten more attention if not for the avalanche of other news. As a military veteran with first-hand experience treating combat wounds, he said he wanted to underscore “how insane it is that in the United States of America a civilian can go out and buy a semiautomatic assault rifle like an AR-15.” You can see Winslow making these comments starting at about time 1:19:00 in the Armed Services Committee video here, and read about the reaction here, here, here, and from a pro-gun site here.

* * *

The question Dean Winslow raised—whether  a weapon designed for the battlefield should be in wide circulation among civilians—is one I’ve been addressing on this site.

Back in the 1980s,  I wrote a long detailed article about the design concepts that the AR-15’s creator, Eugene Stoner, put into this weapon, and the ways it changed before going into service as the military’s M-16. If you want to know about the “barrel twist” differences in various models of the rifle, or the controversy about its bullet size, or how the AR-15 and M-16 compare with the Soviet-designed AK-47, or why it uses the kind of gunpowder it does, I would direct you to that article. (Or—please!—at least consider reading the article before firing off an incensed complaint that I haven’t addressed any of those aspects.)

In the past week I’ve posted several sequences of reader mail about the AR-15 and its uses. You can read the sequence first here, then here, then here. The latest item was from a one-time Colt engineer with a perspective like Dean Winslow’s: These rifles were meant for the military, not civilians.

Mail keeps pouring in on this topic. After a first winnowing,  by throwing out messages that include the words “libtard,” “cuck,” “ass from your elbow,” or “left-wing liar,” I’ll offer a sample of the range of views, some of them extremely detailed. Here goes:

---

When did the AR-15 first become available to civilians? One of the engineers I quoted said that the AR-15 had gone into military production (as the M-16) before appearing on the civilian market. Several readers disagree, with details like the ones offered here:

In your article "Why the AR-15 Was Never Meant to be in Civilians' Hands", your source claims that the AR-15 was not commercially available to civilians before it was standardized by the military. This is factually incorrect.

Colt sent a pilot model rifle (serial no. GX4968) to the BATF for civilian sale approval on Oct. 23, 1963. It was approved on Dec. 10, 1963, and sales of the "Model R6000 Colt AR-15 SP1 Sporter Rifle" began on Jan 2, 1964. The M16 wasn't issued to infantry units until 1965 (as the XM16E1), wasn't standardized as the M16A1 until 1967, and didn't officially replace the M14 until 1969. Colt had been selling semi-automatic AR-15's to civilians for 5 years by the time the M16A1 replaced the M14. Going off of the serial number records for the SP1, Colt had sold at least 2,501 rifles to the civilian market by 1965, 8,250 rifles by 1967, and 14,653 rifles by 1969.

Your source further says that he's shocked to "see this weapon any place other than the battlefield", and suggests that Stoner would have been as well. Colt was literally selling the rifle to the civilian market at the same time that they were testing and refining the rifle with the military in an attempt to land a contract. I don't understand how one could have been working at Colt and not have known this, particularly with so many civilian sales by 1967 It would have been something like 7 rifles sold on the civilian market per day that year, at least.

Furthermore, while I'm don't want to suggest that you're attempting to mislead by quoting this source in your article, it's prudent to note that there have been numerous articles lately (and have been over the years) which have been attempting to portray the civilian sale of the AR-15 as some recent development in order to explain the rise in mass shootings. The Colt AR-15 has been on the civilian market for 53 years (since 1964), and AR-15 pattern rifles made by companies other than Colt have been for 40 years (since 1977, when Stoner's patent on the AR-15 gas system expired). Sales of the AR-15 to civilians even predates background checks (Gun Control Act of 1968).

The first record I could find of a shooting with an AR-15 was George Banks in 1982 - at which point it had been on the market for 18 years, and Colt's SP1 serial numbers indicated 158,201 rifles sold… Its popularity in modern era mass shootings is unique, and is no doubt spurned on (like the mass shootings themselves) by media fetishization of the details, motives, and equipment of mass murderers.

Finally, I take issue with your article "Why the AR-15 Is So Lethal". The wounding potential of fragmentation (which is a result of a fast moving bullet yawing in tissue) is negligible compared to the wounding potential of hollow point bullets which generally expand to twice the bullet's diameter. Such bullets have existed since at least 1899 when they were (in my opinion, erroneously) banned by the Hague Convention. Jim Sullivan, one of the AR-15's designers, confirmed as much here:
"But 5.56 can’t complete with hunting cartridge bullets which can legally be expanding hollow point that are more lethal than tumbling and their lethality is based entirely on how powerful they are."

Hollow point bullets have been available in just about every cartridge for decades, and outclass military ammunition across the board (due to the Geneva Convention restrictions). The recommended cartridges for police and government use are all hollow point derived designs, whose lethality is thus correlated with the size of the projectile - not the weapon system itself. No departments use the original M193 or M855 to my knowledge for this reason.

In short: these two articles appear to be portraying the AR-15 as a rifle that was never supposed to be sold to civilians/was only sold to them at a later date, and a rifle which is inherently uniquely lethal. On both counts this is demonstrably false. There was good research in your articles (and the 1981 one), to be sure, but there is yet more correct information available and I believe the headlines are misleading ("Why the AR-15 Was Never Meant to be in Civilians' Hands", and "Why the AR-15 Is So Lethal"). More correct headlines would be something like these: "Why the AR-15 was sold to civilians before the army decided to adopt it", and "Why the AR-15's cartridge was and is not particularly lethal compared to the modern technology available at the time." Of course, they wouldn't exactly grab your attention.

You’d expect me to disagree with a lot of this perspective, and I do, but I’ll save that for later. For now I’m giving a range of people their say. Here is another reader with a similar complaint:

Regarding your comments made in your recent article "The Nature of the AR-15": you are being disingenuous when you claim that the AR-15 is "more lethal" than the M16, at least without making the distinction between the original ArmaLite AR-15s and the AR-15s sold commercially today. [JF note: the point of the article was that the M-16 became less reliable than the AR-15, because of changes in the process of “militarizing” it.]

The AR-15s sold at your local sporting goods store are a far cry from the ArmaLite AR-15s first used experimentally in Southeast Asia back in 1962-63, for two reasons. 1) The original AR-15s used in Vietnam were capable of semi or full-automatic fire, whereas all AR-15s sold to civilians today are semi-automatic only. 2) The original AR-15s had a 1-in-14 barrel twist, the effects of which you yourself described in your 1981 article. Virtually all AR-15s sold today have a 1-in-7, 1-in-8, or a 1-in-9 barrel twist. [This lower barrel-twist rate makes the bullet rotate more rapidly and therefore stay more stable in flight — and on impact.]

And from another reader, further on the twist ratio:

Most of the complaints by troops serving over seas currently is that the hits they are making are going right through with little damage.

When Stoner first shrunk the AR-10 in 7.62 [a larger bullet] to the smaller AR-15 with its 5.56 bullet, the barrel had a twist of one rotation in 14 inches.  

The Marines asked that this be increased to one twist in 12 inches as they felt the accuracy, especially in cold climates was insufficient.  

Most current Civilian and Military 5.56mm rifles use a twist of 1:7, 1:8 or 1:9.  At these high twist rates, the tumbling that was seen in the 60's and 70's is nonexistent.  

In fact most of these are considered over stabilized based on the weight of the bullets most are shooting.  

---

For a different perspective on the broader question of semiautomatic weapons in civilian hands, first here is a reader who mocks an earlier reader’s claim that the AR-15 can’t really be all that deadly. After all, the 2000 or so rounds fired in Las Vegas killed “only” 58 people:

Thank you - 36 years late - for the piece on the history of the AR-15. A friend who knows of what he speaks praised it as the most comprehensive look at the multitude of nightmares.

Concerning the tactless and inane comment on the 2000 shots fired to 58 deaths in the Las Vegas accident, it seemed really unusual that the author would provide that ratio as evidence that the AR-15 is ineffective.  

After all, the GAO reported that the military averaged 250,000 shots fired per kill in Iraq and Afghanistan.  

Another reader, on another argument that the AR-15 isn’t really all that deadly:

One thing seems to be overlooked by many of the readers who object to your characterization of the AR-15’s lethality. Several have commented that the AR-15 is not suitable for hunting big game, because it lacks “stopping power” or will leave large deer or bears merely wounded.

I am willing to assume that these readers, who seem to be experienced hunters, know what they are talking about, as far as shooting large animals in the bush is concerned.

This raises two issues to me:

1. It rather discredits any NRA claim that AR-15s are for sportsmen to hunt with.

2. It ignores the circumstances of the mass shootings you have been discussing.

Shooting a charging bear in the woods clearly requires different tactics and ammo than shooting large numbers of unarmed victims at close range in an enclosed space. You don’t need “stopping power” when you targets are children cowering on the floor at your feet or concert-goers gathered in crowds before a stage.

In these circumstances, the strengths of the AR-15 that you noted—such as speed of firing, lack of recoil, ease of use, rapid reloading, and so on—are clearly more important that raw “stopping power.” At the kind of close range involved in the church, theatre, and school shootings, there is no need for a large round to effectively kill the victims. And the speed of firing allowed the shooters to hit far more victims with a murderous “spray” in a short time.

The Las Vegas gunman was shooting farther, but not beyond the rifle’s effective range. And the massive number of rounds he was able to fire were the key to killing so many in the crowd in such a short period of time. These mass shootings are awfully close to the cliche of “shooting fish in a barrel.”

So I would submit that these reader objections may wll be accurate, but are not relevant to the kinds of incidents you are discussing. If you’re hunting bear, it’s key to be “loaded for bear.” But if you are hunting families at church, bear ammo may not be the most effective choice. Based on the information in your “Bureaucratic Nightmare” article and the comments of these readers, it seems the AR-15 is poorly suited to big game hunting, but all-too suited to murdering large numbers of confined civilians quickly.

And:

While many can’t perhaps believe that these tragic losses of life could be any worse, as a US Army Infantry Vet I certainly can .   

Ban or heavily regulate those semi auto rifles ?  Select-fire ones from Mexico will be the replacements, with rocket propelled grenades. Good bad or indifferent, that's the reality.

[Neighbor]

On 10/28/2018 at 8:13 PM, Wayne222 said:

         Another killer using a AK 15 to kill a lot of people. I think this weapon should be ban. It's too strong and deadly and seems to be the choice one. I hope it is ban. 

Polk County Florida Sheriff  is on todays news urging church attendees and church leaders to take his shooting course, paraphrasing he said;  be prepared and put lots of shoots on the next attacker. Lets read about holes in him and not you. If you don't take the course practice and become prepared all I can do is come to the scene after the shooting and see you all shot up. Defend yourself be prepared take our class.

Edited October 30, 2018 by Neighbor

[Guest Teditis]

39 minutes ago, Gary Lee said:

 

The AR-5, 1955

 

You  may want to read an article other than wiki.  ( 1954-ArmaLite was founded as a division of Fairchild Engine and Aircraft Corporation. While most people equate the AR 15 Rifle with military variants, the company was actually founded with the goal of developing civilian market guns using modern materials and manufacturing technologies)  Read below;

This article explains the AR designation, and history......... "ArmaLite Rifle"
      copy/paste
https://www.ammoland.com/2016/04/ar-15-rifle-historical-time-line/#axzz5VRoMe93x

 

James Fallows

5:41 PM / November 12, 2017

More on the Military and Civilian History of the AR-15

Joshua Roberts / Reuters

This past Tuesday Dean Winslow, a medical doctor and retired Air Force colonel who had deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan as a flight surgeon, appeared before the Senate Armed Services committee. It was considering his nomination as the Trump administration’s assistant secretary of defense for health affairs.

At the hearing, Senator Jean Shaheen, a Democrat of New Hampshire, asked Winslow about mental-health issues in the military—and specifically about the shooter in the Sutherland Springs massacre, who had been courtmartialed and given a bad-conduct discharge by the Air Force for offenses that included threatening people with guns.

Winslow answered that question, and then volunteered a view that would have gotten more attention if not for the avalanche of other news. As a military veteran with first-hand experience treating combat wounds, he said he wanted to underscore “how insane it is that in the United States of America a civilian can go out and buy a semiautomatic assault rifle like an AR-15.” You can see Winslow making these comments starting at about time 1:19:00 in the Armed Services Committee video here, and read about the reaction here, here, here, and from a pro-gun site here.

* * *

The question Dean Winslow raised—whether  a weapon designed for the battlefield should be in wide circulation among civilians—is one I’ve been addressing on this site.

 

Back in the 1980s,  I wrote a long detailed article about the design concepts that the AR-15’s creator, Eugene Stoner, put into this weapon, and the ways it changed before going into service as the military’s M-16. If you want to know about the “barrel twist” differences in various models of the rifle, or the controversy about its bullet size, or how the AR-15 and M-16 compare with the Soviet-designed AK-47, or why it uses the kind of gunpowder it does, I would direct you to that article. (Or—please!—at least consider reading the article before firing off an incensed complaint that I haven’t addressed any of those aspects.)

In the past week I’ve posted several sequences of reader mail about the AR-15 and its uses. You can read the sequence first here, then here, then here. The latest item was from a one-time Colt engineer with a perspective like Dean Winslow’s: These rifles were meant for the military, not civilians.

Mail keeps pouring in on this topic. After a first winnowing,  by throwing out messages that include the words “libtard,” “cuck,” “ass from your elbow,” or “left-wing liar,” I’ll offer a sample of the range of views, some of them extremely detailed. Here goes:

---

When did the AR-15 first become available to civilians? One of the engineers I quoted said that the AR-15 had gone into military production (as the M-16) before appearing on the civilian market. Several readers disagree, with details like the ones offered here:

In your article "Why the AR-15 Was Never Meant to be in Civilians' Hands", your source claims that the AR-15 was not commercially available to civilians before it was standardized by the military. This is factually incorrect.

Colt sent a pilot model rifle (serial no. GX4968) to the BATF for civilian sale approval on Oct. 23, 1963. It was approved on Dec. 10, 1963, and sales of the "Model R6000 Colt AR-15 SP1 Sporter Rifle" began on Jan 2, 1964. The M16 wasn't issued to infantry units until 1965 (as the XM16E1), wasn't standardized as the M16A1 until 1967, and didn't officially replace the M14 until 1969. Colt had been selling semi-automatic AR-15's to civilians for 5 years by the time the M16A1 replaced the M14. Going off of the serial number records for the SP1, Colt had sold at least 2,501 rifles to the civilian market by 1965, 8,250 rifles by 1967, and 14,653 rifles by 1969.

Your source further says that he's shocked to "see this weapon any place other than the battlefield", and suggests that Stoner would have been as well. Colt was literally selling the rifle to the civilian market at the same time that they were testing and refining the rifle with the military in an attempt to land a contract. I don't understand how one could have been working at Colt and not have known this, particularly with so many civilian sales by 1967 It would have been something like 7 rifles sold on the civilian market per day that year, at least.

Furthermore, while I'm don't want to suggest that you're attempting to mislead by quoting this source in your article, it's prudent to note that there have been numerous articles lately (and have been over the years) which have been attempting to portray the civilian sale of the AR-15 as some recent development in order to explain the rise in mass shootings. The Colt AR-15 has been on the civilian market for 53 years (since 1964), and AR-15 pattern rifles made by companies other than Colt have been for 40 years (since 1977, when Stoner's patent on the AR-15 gas system expired). Sales of the AR-15 to civilians even predates background checks (Gun Control Act of 1968).

The first record I could find of a shooting with an AR-15 was George Banks in 1982 - at which point it had been on the market for 18 years, and Colt's SP1 serial numbers indicated 158,201 rifles sold… Its popularity in modern era mass shootings is unique, and is no doubt spurned on (like the mass shootings themselves) by media fetishization of the details, motives, and equipment of mass murderers.

Finally, I take issue with your article "Why the AR-15 Is So Lethal". The wounding potential of fragmentation (which is a result of a fast moving bullet yawing in tissue) is negligible compared to the wounding potential of hollow point bullets which generally expand to twice the bullet's diameter. Such bullets have existed since at least 1899 when they were (in my opinion, erroneously) banned by the Hague Convention. Jim Sullivan, one of the AR-15's designers, confirmed as much here:
"But 5.56 can’t complete with hunting cartridge bullets which can legally be expanding hollow point that are more lethal than tumbling and their lethality is based entirely on how powerful they are."

Hollow point bullets have been available in just about every cartridge for decades, and outclass military ammunition across the board (due to the Geneva Convention restrictions). The recommended cartridges for police and government use are all hollow point derived designs, whose lethality is thus correlated with the size of the projectile - not the weapon system itself. No departments use the original M193 or M855 to my knowledge for this reason.

In short: these two articles appear to be portraying the AR-15 as a rifle that was never supposed to be sold to civilians/was only sold to them at a later date, and a rifle which is inherently uniquely lethal. On both counts this is demonstrably false. There was good research in your articles (and the 1981 one), to be sure, but there is yet more correct information available and I believe the headlines are misleading ("Why the AR-15 Was Never Meant to be in Civilians' Hands", and "Why the AR-15 Is So Lethal"). More correct headlines would be something like these: "Why the AR-15 was sold to civilians before the army decided to adopt it", and "Why the AR-15's cartridge was and is not particularly lethal compared to the modern technology available at the time." Of course, they wouldn't exactly grab your attention.

You’d expect me to disagree with a lot of this perspective, and I do, but I’ll save that for later. For now I’m giving a range of people their say. Here is another reader with a similar complaint:

Regarding your comments made in your recent article "The Nature of the AR-15": you are being disingenuous when you claim that the AR-15 is "more lethal" than the M16, at least without making the distinction between the original ArmaLite AR-15s and the AR-15s sold commercially today. [JF note: the point of the article was that the M-16 became less reliable than the AR-15, because of changes in the process of “militarizing” it.]

The AR-15s sold at your local sporting goods store are a far cry from the ArmaLite AR-15s first used experimentally in Southeast Asia back in 1962-63, for two reasons. 1) The original AR-15s used in Vietnam were capable of semi or full-automatic fire, whereas all AR-15s sold to civilians today are semi-automatic only. 2) The original AR-15s had a 1-in-14 barrel twist, the effects of which you yourself described in your 1981 article. Virtually all AR-15s sold today have a 1-in-7, 1-in-8, or a 1-in-9 barrel twist. [This lower barrel-twist rate makes the bullet rotate more rapidly and therefore stay more stable in flight — and on impact.]

And from another reader, further on the twist ratio:

Most of the complaints by troops serving over seas currently is that the hits they are making are going right through with little damage.

When Stoner first shrunk the AR-10 in 7.62 [a larger bullet] to the smaller AR-15 with its 5.56 bullet, the barrel had a twist of one rotation in 14 inches.  

The Marines asked that this be increased to one twist in 12 inches as they felt the accuracy, especially in cold climates was insufficient.  

Most current Civilian and Military 5.56mm rifles use a twist of 1:7, 1:8 or 1:9.  At these high twist rates, the tumbling that was seen in the 60's and 70's is nonexistent.  

In fact most of these are considered over stabilized based on the weight of the bullets most are shooting.  

---

For a different perspective on the broader question of semiautomatic weapons in civilian hands, first here is a reader who mocks an earlier reader’s claim that the AR-15 can’t really be all that deadly. After all, the 2000 or so rounds fired in Las Vegas killed “only” 58 people:

Thank you - 36 years late - for the piece on the history of the AR-15. A friend who knows of what he speaks praised it as the most comprehensive look at the multitude of nightmares.

Concerning the tactless and inane comment on the 2000 shots fired to 58 deaths in the Las Vegas accident, it seemed really unusual that the author would provide that ratio as evidence that the AR-15 is ineffective.  

After all, the GAO reported that the military averaged 250,000 shots fired per kill in Iraq and Afghanistan.  

Another reader, on another argument that the AR-15 isn’t really all that deadly:

One thing seems to be overlooked by many of the readers who object to your characterization of the AR-15’s lethality. Several have commented that the AR-15 is not suitable for hunting big game, because it lacks “stopping power” or will leave large deer or bears merely wounded.

I am willing to assume that these readers, who seem to be experienced hunters, know what they are talking about, as far as shooting large animals in the bush is concerned.

This raises two issues to me:

1. It rather discredits any NRA claim that AR-15s are for sportsmen to hunt with.huuuuu

Shooting a charging bear in the woods clearly requires different tactics and ammo than shooting large numbers of unarmed victims at close range in an enclosed space. You don’t need “stopping power” when you targets are children cowering on the floor at your feet or concert-goers gathered in crowds before a stage.

In these circumstances, the strengths of the AR-15 that you noted—such as speed of firing, lack of recoil, ease of use, rapid reloading, and so on—are clearly more important that raw “stopping power.” At the kind of close range involved in the church, theatre, and school shootings, there is no need for a large round to effectively kill the victims. And the speed of firing allowed the shooters to hit far more victims with a murderous “spray” in a short time.

The Las Vegas gunman was shooting farther, but not beyond the rifle’s effective range. And the massive number of rounds he was able to fire were the key to killing so many in the crowd in such a short period of time. These mass shootings are awfully close to the cliche of “shooting fish in a barrel.”

So I would submit that these reader objections may wll be accurate, but are not relevant to the kinds of incidents you are discussing. If you’re hunting bear, it’s key to be “loaded for bear.” But if you are hunting families at church, bear ammo may not be the most effective choice. Based on the information in your “Bureaucratic Nightmare” article and the comments of these readers, it seems the AR-15 is poorly suited to big game hunting, but all-too suited to murdering large numbers of confined civilians quickly.

And:

While many can’t perhaps believe that these tragic losses of life could be any worse, as a US Army Infantry Vet I certainly can .   

Ban or heavily regulate those semi auto rifles ?  Select-fire ones from Mexico will be the replacements, with rocket propelled grenades. Good bad or indifferent, that's the reality.

That's irrelevant to the fact that they were also marketing to the Military! Your own research points to this obvious fact that

the military was the primary marketing group! The use of the weapon in civilian applications is also irrelevant to this convo.

The AR-15 (aka Army-Regulated/ Automatic Rifle) was for primary development to jungle warfare... the non-military uses were

practically of non-issue. It was purchased by the military for just such uses and not in small quantities. I have first-hand accounts

of it's use and praise by veterans. That's not trivial. I would also note here that the weapon was NOT automatic and thus the moniker "AR"

was most likely for "Army-Regulated" and not "automatic rifle"... much less ArmaLite Rifle. The M-16 came later and was lambasted for

it's flaws in specifically jamming. So the two weapons and their comparisons/contrasts are equally of non-issue. A fully automatic weapon and

a semi-automatic weapon are two different beasts altogether.

Any talk about the uses of the AR-15 post 1960's is also irrelevant. As the weapon was bought and used for whatever purposes that was

vital at those periods (early 1960's). Those purposes were primarily high rate of fire and relative damage to the target... AR -15 met these objectives, and

thus incorporated into the military arsenal.

Your discussion of it's usage in the private/public uses are well founded and appreciated... it simply is an ineffective weapon against common

game animals and the like... it's ability to wound and do grievous damage though worked out well on the battlefield. Patriot just doesn't seem to

recognize this major issue in regard to the notion that the weapon was designed for public use... hence his naivety, from my perspective. The drive

of ArmaLite in those years was to pick-up a serious contract.

I stick to my original premise, that the weapon was designed for the military and also eagerly used by them. It was NOT a weapon that was highly

marketed to the general public as it had little or no value to a "sportsman hunter".

 

[Steve_S]

2 hours ago, Teditis said:

Your still wrong Pat, despite your length of words. AR simply does not designate a weapon as an ArmaLite weapon... it's for Army Regulated weapons.

That's clear-cut in historical facts. It's a military designation... not a manufacturer designation. Learn your military SOP. ArmaLite did not

rename the weapon after they improved it's design... they merely used the military's designator in further discussions.

And again. I'm not going personal on you Pat... I simply don't have any feelings about your being wrong on this subject, I'm just passing time

on the computer here. I just get irked a little bit at disinformation... like you're giving here. You try to pass yourself off as some sort of expert on

guns... and you merely don't know as much as you think. See, I've dealt with AR-15 and M-16's first-hand... asked professionals questions about them.

You have blogs off the internet... so much gossip, see? ArmaLite did not give the designator AR-15 to the weapon, the Gov't did. You see, it did not conform

to Army rules and regulations until the Army deemed it so. This is all documented fact!!!

So quit saying that I'm making it personal (attacks)… you always do that whenever someone disagrees with you. You slander people and should be reported for

it all. (but I know that your Mod friends would just side with you because you're vociferous.) Quit slandering me when the document facts are all clear cut, please.

In my opinion you're just trying to save face as the defacto Worthy gun expert regardless that documented facts fly in your face. You're not the only one who's

handle weapons before... I'm secure in the knowledge that I have way more experience with guns than you'll ever have. They've been not only a part of my

personal life, but my professional life as well. How do go against my professional knowledge of AR-15's with combat soldiers, where you have no such

experience? See, I actually KNOW people that used them in combat situations… you again have internet blogs. Who do you think I'm going to trust given

those two situations? You? HA! I give credit to where it's due... committed soldiers who used the AR-15 on the front-lines. They told me about it's inherent
positive and negative aspects. So I have know doubts what-so-ever that you are simply misinformed.

You're simply uninformed about the history of this weapon and that doesn't upset me... many people go through life devoid of understanding... it's a joke

really that people have a platform to voice ignorance in a public forum like this, unchecked. But I guess that I need to get used to it.

Removed form thread.

[Dennis1209]

4 hours ago, other one said:

in case people think some country might just come waltzing in and take over our nation, they need to understand that we have over 70 million armed people in this country and most people my age would take on any army in the world to protect our land and families.

In addition, this nation has many veterans and retired military that remember their combat training. Many keep their skills sharp at the range and simulate various situations. Have read the 'Art of War' by Sun Tzu and other tacticians and know their military history and tactics, not to mention the lessons learned the hard way in Viet Nam and gorilla warfare tactics. 

Good thread and interesting to compare thoughts and opinions. 

[The_Patriot21]

5 hours ago, other one said:

it is, but all  5.56 chambered is thicker....  I just assumed that my ar-15 has a m16 barrel.   may be wrong.

Yes the brass itself on the 5.56 cartridge is slightly thicker, to allow for more power. Which is why you can fire .223 through a 5.56 gun, but you cant always go the other way around, as a .223 chambered weapon doesnt have the headspace to handle the increased pressure. Some .223 weapons you can, because the weapon is strong enough to handle the pressure without the increased headspace, but not all.

The barrels between a standard AR-15 and M16 are literally identical in most cases. Most ar-15s are chambered in 5.56 nato. The difference lies in the m16 has a slightly different trigger assembly and bolt carrier group as well as I believe (not 100% on this) slightly thicker walls on the upper receiver to allow for full automatic/burst fire.

Of course most guns these days dont match the specs of the original AR, and in the case of mine, which i custom built, definitely do not. 

[The_Patriot21]

21 hours ago, Teditis said:

Your still wrong Pat, despite your length of words. AR simply does not designate a weapon as an ArmaLite weapon... it's for Army Regulated weapons.

That's clear-cut in historical facts. It's a military designation... not a manufacturer designation. Learn your military SOP. ArmaLite did not

rename the weapon after they improved it's design... they merely used the military's designator in further discussions.

And again. I'm not going personal on you Pat... I simply don't have any feelings about your being wrong on this subject, I'm just passing time

on the computer here. I just get irked a little bit at disinformation... like you're giving here. You try to pass yourself off as some sort of expert on

guns... and you merely don't know as much as you think. See, I've dealt with AR-15 and M-16's first-hand... asked professionals questions about them.

You have blogs off the internet... so much gossip, see? ArmaLite did not give the designator AR-15 to the weapon, the Gov't did. You see, it did not conform

to Army rules and regulations until the Army deemed it so. This is all documented fact!!!

So quit saying that I'm making it personal (attacks)… you always do that whenever someone disagrees with you. You slander people and should be reported for

it all. (but I know that your Mod friends would just side with you because you're vociferous.) Quit slandering me when the document facts are all clear cut, please.

In my opinion you're just trying to save face as the defacto Worthy gun expert regardless that documented facts fly in your face. You're not the only one who's

handle weapons before... I'm secure in the knowledge that I have way more experience with guns than you'll ever have. They've been not only a part of my

personal life, but my professional life as well. How do go against my professional knowledge of AR-15's with combat soldiers, where you have no such

experience? See, I actually KNOW people that used them in combat situations… you again have internet blogs. Who do you think I'm going to trust given

those two situations? You? HA! I give credit to where it's due... committed soldiers who used the AR-15 on the front-lines. They told me about it's inherent
positive and negative aspects. So I have know doubts what-so-ever that you are simply misinformed.

You're simply uninformed about the history of this weapon and that doesn't upset me... many people go through life devoid of understanding... it's a joke

really that people have a platform to voice ignorance in a public forum like this, unchecked. But I guess that I need to get used to it.

Look heres the thing...i have provided 2 legitimate sources irrefutablely proving my case, and a simple google search pulls up easily 100 more sources that all say one thing-that you know absolutely nothing about the rifle. You have provided absolutely zero evidence, to back your claims, just pride and anger filled attacks and insults. 

So, i dont know why you continue this, its obvious to everyone but you that your information about the Armalite 15 rifle is woefully incorrect, or why its so important to you to be right that your willing to literally throw away both your Christian witness and credibility to do so, but i have nothing to prove to you. I not only know im right because the facts support it, but i have more important things to do then argue with someone who refuses to see the truth over something that quite frankly, in the long term, is rather irrelevant.

So i will put you in my prayers, tbat you come to terms with whatever is troubling you, and i will not respond to any more attacks from you. May the Lord bless you.

Edited October 31, 2018 by The_Patriot2018