Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The argument in your post is simply dull. That device was designed primarily as an assault weapon for relatively close in combat. It is capable in even a semiautomatic version of a high rate of fire with a relatively large ammunition load. Paddock demonstrated its capability very well as did Mateen and Johnson. The fact that you choose to assemble a relatively long barreled version to hunt coyotes in no way changes the design intent.
I am an electrical engineer with decades of experience in designing and controlling mechanisms. I also learned to shoot in the 50s and served in the US Army in that decade. I suspect I can still strip an M1 or M1 carbine. I am reasonably familiar with the modern guns though neither an expert nor hobbyist. I may well chose to get a concealed weapons permit one of these years.
If the AR 15 as a precision tool for both hunting and competition is a dull argument the bullet hose death machine takes it one step beyond. The AR platform is and has been for quite a while the US issue service rifle. Thus it is used at Camp Perry and all other service rifle competitions. In issue, off the rack trim. It is more than capable of outstanding accuracy.
It's predecessor, the M14/M1A was the gold standard along with the Garand in these competitions and both are still used, however the AR is current issue and sees just as much if not more representation than both the former classics. The M1A also takes a higher capacity box magazine (standard being a 20) and was also originally designed as a battle rifle. So why then is it not the bogeyman the AR is? Seems to me 20 rounds of 7.62x51/308 trumps even 30 rounds of 5.56/223. The former is a far more potent cartridge. It is also chambered in the AR platform and it's just as accurate a rifle as the M1A .
The rifles I have and am in the process of assembling are not "long barreled" even relatively. A 20 inch barrel is standard for an M16 and a 16 is standard for an M4. These are the tubes I use. The 20 inch is even a standard twist 1/7 mil spec. It is true that in its standard chambering it is a rifle with closer in distances in mind. Around 200 yards or so being its sweet spot. But, the 223/5.56 is a varmint cartridge. Small caliber high velocity, which was also the theory behind its adoption by the military.
Nevertheless, within the limitations of the cartridge it is a very accurate system. Bumping up into the 308 1000 yard shooting is well within reason. It will run with the M14 all day and even with the venerable Garand. The platform is far from being suitable only for combat purposes. That same argument has been applied by gun control advocates and firearms phobics for all types of firearms. Handguns are only suitable for killing, nobody needs a handgun. Semi auto service style rifles are only designed to kill people. Nobody needs one of THOSE rifles. Why does anyone need a long range bolt action "sniper rifle." On and on ad nauseum.
The AR is more than capable of delivering match grade accuracy that would please even the most discerning of shooters. The myriad of chamberings it can be had in will handle any task for which a rifle is suited. Small, medium and big game, service rifle and general centerfire rifle competition, steel silohuettes, three gun action matches, and it does of course have a niche in defensive use.
So, regardless of what you feel regarding the lustre of the argument to be, the fact is that the AR is an outstanding shooting tool across the board. And why the AR is getting picked on in such a singular fashion as opposed to so many other similarly designed rifles I must admit mystifies me.
One reason I have not bought an AR15 is because the M16 was a piece of junk. I used one in combat and they were totally unreliable. Are the ARs a better rifle?
I fought shy of ARs for a long time because of my Dads experiences in Viet Nam and subsequent disparaging opinion of the system. It did have some serious teething problems but most of its fouling issues stemmed from an improper twist rate for the bullet weight and using the wrong type of powder in the ammunition. The twist rate caused the infamous "tumbling" bullet as it did not properly stabilize the projectile and coupled with use of an extruded type powder which is fine for a 30 cal weapon but not a 22 the bolt face gummed up after just a few rounds.
Even now with design improvements and the right ammunition it still likes to be kept well lubricated to stay running over extensive shooting. A slow burning extruded powder doesn't mix well with a direct impingement operating system and the incorrect twist rate in the bore exacerbated this in the originals.
The forward assist was added on to alleviate the fouling issue, which I think is silly. Forcing the bolt to close over fouling with a forward assist? If you are having to use the forward assist I'd say its past time to clean the rifle.
After a fair amount of research and learning about the history of the platform and the design improvements and having built a few I have full confidence in todays ARs.
It has nothing to do with the statistics. The weapon has no good purpose other than killing people. And if was banned there would likely be 40 or so people alive in both LV and Pulse.
And try and take out over 500 people at 400 yards with a 12 gauge.
Never shot a buck with anything. But I have fired virtually all common weapons up to 50 caliber.
If someone came up with a half kiloton weapon that weighed ten lbs I would be strongly in favor of banning it. I do not think I would care if some poor hobbyist was not allowed to create craters or blow up stumps. Same problem with ARs.
So what you are really saying is you want all firearms banned. Unless you can explain how an AR is more deadly then something like a Benelii R1.
You are just caught up in the whole black rifle is evil hype without thinking it out.
You can a gun off Craigslist these days and everyone knows someone who will sale them a gun they want to get rid of. Your never going to be able to stop being from buying guns without a license. Period the government/ law enforcement can only do so much.
If the AR 15 as a precision tool for both hunting and competition is a dull argument the bullet hose death machine takes it one step beyond. The AR platform is and has been for quite a while the US issue service rifle. Thus it is used at Camp Perry and all other service rifle competitions. In issue, off the rack trim. It is more than capable of outstanding accuracy.
It's predecessor, the M14/M1A was the gold standard along with the Garand in these competitions and both are still used, however the AR is current issue and sees just as much if not more representation than both the former classics. The M1A also takes a higher capacity box magazine (standard being a 20) and was also originally designed as a battle rifle. So why then is it not the bogeyman the AR is? Seems to me 20 rounds of 7.62x51/308 trumps even 30 rounds of 5.56/223. The former is a far more potent cartridge. It is also chambered in the AR platform and it's just as accurate a rifle as the M1A .
The rifles I have and am in the process of assembling are not "long barreled" even relatively. A 20 inch barrel is standard for an M16 and a 16 is standard for an M4. These are the tubes I use. The 20 inch is even a standard twist 1/7 mil spec. It is true that in its standard chambering it is a rifle with closer in distances in mind. Around 200 yards or so being its sweet spot. But, the 223/5.56 is a varmint cartridge. Small caliber high velocity, which was also the theory behind its adoption by the military.
Nevertheless, within the limitations of the cartridge it is a very accurate system. Bumping up into the 308 1000 yard shooting is well within reason. It will run with the M14 all day and even with the venerable Garand. The platform is far from being suitable only for combat purposes. That same argument has been applied by gun control advocates and firearms phobics for all types of firearms. Handguns are only suitable for killing, nobody needs a handgun. Semi auto service style rifles are only designed to kill people. Nobody needs one of THOSE rifles. Why does anyone need a long range bolt action "sniper rifle." On and on ad nauseum.
The AR is more than capable of delivering match grade accuracy that would please even the most discerning of shooters. The myriad of chamberings it can be had in will handle any task for which a rifle is suited. Small, medium and big game, service rifle and general centerfire rifle competition, steel silohuettes, three gun action matches, and it does of course have a niche in defensive use.
So, regardless of what you feel regarding the lustre of the argument to be, the fact is that the AR is an outstanding shooting tool across the board. And why the AR is getting picked on in such a singular fashion as opposed to so many other similarly designed rifles I must admit mystifies me.
Still nonsense.
The thing is designed to be used as a bullet fire hose. The fact you can and do use it otherwise does not change that. If it was outlawed you would easily find other guns to use in the same pursuits.
I fought shy of ARs for a long time because of my Dads experiences in Viet Nam and subsequent disparaging opinion of the system. It did have some serious teething problems but most of its fouling issues stemmed from an improper twist rate for the bullet weight and using the wrong type of powder in the ammunition. The twist rate caused the infamous "tumbling" bullet as it did not properly stabilize the projectile and coupled with use of an extruded type powder which is fine for a 30 cal weapon but not a 22 the bolt face gummed up after just a few rounds.
Even now with design improvements and the right ammunition it still likes to be kept well lubricated to stay running over extensive shooting. A slow burning extruded powder doesn't mix well with a direct impingement operating system and the incorrect twist rate in the bore exacerbated this in the originals.
The forward assist was added on to alleviate the fouling issue, which I think is silly. Forcing the bolt to close over fouling with a forward assist? If you are having to use the forward assist I'd say its past time to clean the rifle.
After a fair amount of research and learning about the history of the platform and the design improvements and having built a few I have full confidence in todays ARs.
Trained in basic with an M-14, it was a much better rifle but the army seemed to think it was too heavy.
Trained in basic with an M-14, it was a much better rifle but the army seemed to think it was too heavy.
At the time perhaps...I'm not a big fan of AR's but I do recognize the fact that the current crop are far and above anything else out there, simply because of the myriad of aftermarket parts. You can literally build whatever you want to go against whatever you put it up against. The platform isn't even caliber specific anymore. ...it's just a matter of how much money you want to put in it.
Still nonsense.
The thing is designed to be used as a bullet fire hose. The fact you can and do use it otherwise does not change that. If it was outlawed you would easily find other guns to use in the same pursuits.
Wrong...
So wrong...
That is your opinion, your feelings. Our Rights do not begin or end around your feelings.
If outlawed LOL What? You coming to get them?
Not one person who owns 1 is willing to forfeit theirs.
We're going to fight to keep them and to keep manufacturing them.
That is your opinion, your feelings. Our Rights do not begin or end around your feelings.
If outlawed LOL What? You coming to get them?
Not one person who owns 1 is willing to forfeit theirs.
We're going to fight to keep them and to keep manufacturing them.
Actually in any realistic outcome they will be grandfathered. Maybe a ban on sales with some sort of by back procedure. But no I do not expect that anyone will come to take the ARs.
As I have said a number of times as long as we have the existing interpretation of the 2nd I will support permissive concealed carry and may chose to do so myself. But let us not misunderstand. There is every indication that people armed with handguns will not do well against anyone with an AR. See Johnson in Dallas and Mateen in Orlando.
Owning the Smith & Wesson MP15 (Smith & Wesson's AR15); and the Fabrique Nationale FN PS90; I would rate them as follows: These are both civilian rifles and only semi-automatic.
The S&W MP15 and FN PS90 are both equally accurate:
I would give the S&W MP15 easier to change magazines: The FN PS 90 requires allot of practice.
I would give the FN PS90 more maneuverable in close quarters since it is small in overall length then the AR15 even with the stock fully collapsed.
I have only ever punched paper targets so I can speak to the takedown power of either one.
The AR15 platform has multiple manufactures making both ammunition and add on accessories for the AR15: The FN PS90 only has a few manufactures making ammunition for it.
The FN PS90 is designed from the operator up, a totally ambidextrous right out of the box rifle, it has linear design, and it ejects the brass by use of gravity, it just drops the brass straight down; since it has a linear design it would also allow the shooter to be lying prone with a full magazine, a task that is a little bit more difficult with the AR15.
I would give the AR15 platform a definite edge in it's versatility and its configurations. the AR15 with the multiple rails it can support allows the connection of more devices then the FN PS90 does, unless you get the after market frame for the FN PS90
It would be a really tough choice as to which one is the overall better rifle. I like them both!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe
Let's be honest, shall we? The opportunity to go on about guns like this for gun enthusiasts is perhaps second only to the love of shooting them. The want to intelligently and rationally consider the pros/cons of gun control in an objective manner (without all the usual childish insults) pales in comparison.
That said, there are SOME gun enthusiasts who are able to have an intelligent adult conversation about this subject just like SOME can generally talk politics in the same way. Just a little too rare in this forum to waste too much time trying is all...
My post on #3765 was not addressed at you; but was in fact addressed NVplumber & NY_refugee87 both of whom have already shown interest in the AR15 platform.
I am more than capable of having a intelligent and honest discussion about gun control and gun laws. One of the biggest problems is there are already thousands of gun laws on the books as it is, and in most cases the firearm change's in commission of a crime is the first thing that is plea bargained away.
Those firearm charges should not be bargained away. Each one should add many years to a person's sentence. Prisons should also be treated as work programs, there are many jobs that are both dangerous and backbreaking that need to be done. This would be the perfect jobs for prisoners to do, have them fitted with collars like in Running Man, you try and escape and you head explodes.
Prisons should not be treated like as time to work out the body and get an education. It should be treated as harsh punishment for a crime in the first place.
Most likely if a person feared the prison sentence in the first place they would think twice about committing the crime before hand.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If you are having to use the forward assist I'd say its past time to clean the rifle. 
