What is it like to fire an AR-15? It’s horrifying, menacing and very very loud (brainwash, state)

[1AngryTaxPayer]

Originally Posted by godofthunder9010

This is true of any gun and frankly the AR-15 is a bit of a lightweight. Try firing a .300 hunting rifle or a 12 gauge shotgun. They're louder, kick harder and do vastly more damage to the target. Or try shooting a short barreled Smith and Wesson 500. A newbie will almost always get smack in the face. That gun is crazy loud and kicks like a mule.

Anybody shooting any reasonably large gun for the first time will be surprised at how loud and scary they are for the uninitiated. I recommend starting off with a .22 and only move on from that when you 100% comfortable. It should be noted that while you can hunt with it, the AR-15 is not considered a good hunting gun because it is underpowered. Thick hided animals like deer and elk are much more likely to survive being shot by it.

7mm valkyrie or .30 RAR are good choices for Elk.

[r small]

I've never shot an AR-15 but I enjoy an afternoon at the range and have fired a good assortment of guns. The most unpleasant shooting experience I've ever had was shooting .357 magnums in a small frame snubbie revolver. Like a stick of dynamite going off in my hand. Never again.

[BentBow]

Originally Posted by Three Wolves In Snow

There is no sulfur smell when you fire modern day weapons. Try again.

Next time, use a legit source, not stupidpedia:

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/lab/for...002/mccord.htm

Wonder if they "hot loaded" a Thompson Center, muzzle loader and told him it was an AR??? LOL

[chucksnee]

Originally Posted by florida.bob

They are very easy to shoot, which is why the wannabes like them.

Maybe you missed the part where it WHOOPPPPPEEEEDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD his ass......

[rbohm]

i mentioned the article to someone, and they suggested that perhaps this guy never actually shot said firearm, just wrote about doing it from what he had been told by someone else.

[chucksnee]

Originally Posted by rbohm

i mentioned the article to someone, and they suggested that perhaps this guy never actually shot said firearm, just wrote about doing it from what he had been told by someone else.

So?

[rbohm]

Originally Posted by chucksnee

So?

if he wrote what someone else said, then he lied about doing the shooting, among other things, and thus should be terminated from his position.

[chucksnee]

Originally Posted by rbohm

if he wrote what someone else said, then he lied about doing the shooting, among other things, and thus should be terminated from his position.

I can agree with that, but it's not going to matter.....it's a leftist....

[rbohm]

Originally Posted by chucksnee

I can agree with that, but it's not going to matter.....it's a leftist....

yeah, i know.

[Three Wolves In Snow]

Originally Posted by rbohm

you are right, the correct term is compound.



again while the amount of sulfur in modern propellants is tiny, some people are still very sensitive to the odor of burning sulfur. most people would not detect the odor though.

I'm willing to bet a couple thousand dollars that this yahoo didn't smell sulfur, just like he didn't suffer from "temporary" PTSD, nor did his shoulder sustain bruises, nor did his sensitive little ears hurt when the gun went off, "loud as a bomb" (unless the idiot wasn't wearing hearing protection). Added to that bet is that I bet he went online and looked up "gunpowder" not realizing that's another name for 'black powder' - which is not in use anymore, saw 3 ingredients, jotted them down, carried them with him all day to look at and put to memory, so that he could, after firing the weapon, declare that he suffered from the horrific sulfur smell....because unless he was shooting off fireworks or some antique weapon, he didn't smell any such thing.