Why Does Anyone Need an AR15

[Thorvir]

They are not. And they were never meant to be.

BS. And stop lying. It wasn't designed intentionally to be "inaccurate". That's completely absurd.

What we are seeing here is a different phenomena, and that is that the Colt company suddenly had a huge stock of M 16 parts and no takers, so what better than to "popularize" the item, change the receiver (due to laws on the books since the 1930s) to semi-automatic and sell it to civilians.

That the thing is pretty useless for civilian applications was not mentioned, and then due to politicians who get attention from the Colt company (one group called pro-gun and the other anti-gun) a real hype started stylizing the whole thing to a "symbol of liberty". After that a item, about as useful as a Rubik cube, became a top seller.

Show us the documentation that what you claim is true.

And watch carefully on youtube, look up AR specifications all around the 'net. AR weapons are shown time and again to be as accurate as the shooter wants them to be.

[questionmark]

Fur huntin' wabbits, dem wascally wabbits.

wighto! an somebody even managed to hit a wabbit twice with 30 wounds!

[questionmark]

BS. And stop lying. It wasn't designed intentionally to be "inaccurate". That's completely absurd.

Show us the documentation that what you claim is true.

And watch carefully on youtube, look up AR specifications all around the 'net. AR weapons are shown time and again to be as accurate as the shooter wants them to be.

So you are claiming that it was designed to be a precision rifle? Can you show us a source?

The idea behind the M-16 (which you can read in all documentation ) was a lightweight weapon capable of causing large damage to the enemy, at least that is the reason Gen. Curtis LeMay wanted to have the thingy introduced (see Alexander Rose, American Rifle: A biography. 2009, Page 372). Precision fire was never an argument. For that there was the XM21. And to this day there were only two precision variants (Colt 655 and 656) built in small numbers and that have only one thing in common with the M 16, and that is the ammunition. And they were not very successful I might add as they have been substituted by other models (SDM-R and SAM-R).

Both reliability and precision were always a point of criticism of the rifle from the Center for Naval Analyses report to an article in the New York times lately. Some issues have been addressed, others have not.

But as a general issue weapon it does not need any precision. That is for specialists. The average soldier just has to be capable of firing in the general direction of the enemy and up to 3000 rounds per casualty is typical on all battlefields since Vietnam.

So much for precision.

[Shayde]

I was giving this thread a ponder or two whilst suffering work, and have a few curious questions to ask, in regard to the weapon being discussed. Okay, I do know that you have slightly different laws in each state, as well as federal laws. This means there will be some differences in parts of the answers, but here goes:

1, What is the cost difference in buying a semi-automatic weapon like the AR 15, compared with a basic hand gun?

2. Is the cost of a firearm dependant on the calibre, make or size of a firearm?

3. What do you actually get when buying a firearm? Aside from the obvious - a gun, duh! - what do you get? A couple of magazines, cleaning kit, carrybag, holsters or what?

4. is there a hard sell to this sort of weapon? Sort of: "Oh you MUST have a rifle for home defence!"" When in fact a simple handgun would do?

5. Okay, I do know there's a waiting period between buying and getting your gun, but is there more to this as a side package? Such as, say lessons in not only being able to fire the thing but also maintaining it?

6. On that regard, does the buyer if they're not a collector have to have mandatory lessons in firing and maintaining their gun?

[Shayde]

So you are claiming that it was designed to be a precision rifle? Can you show us a source?

The idea behind the M-16 (which you can read in all documentation ) was a lightweight weapon capable of causing large damage to the enemy, at least that is the reason Gen. Curtis LeMay wanted to have the thingy introduced (see Alexander Rose, American Rifle: A biography. 2009, Page 372). Precision fire was never an argument. For that there was the XM21. And to this day there were only two precision variants (Colt 655 and 656) built in small numbers and that have only one thing in common with the M 16, and that is the ammunition. And they were not very successful I might add as they have been substituted by other models (SDM-R and SAM-R).

Both reliability and precision were always a point of criticism of the rifle from the Center for Naval Analyses report to an article in the New York times lately. Some issues have been addressed, others have not.

But as a general issue weapon it does not need any precision. That is for specialists. The average soldier just has to be capable of firing in the general direction of the enemy and up to 3000 rounds per casualty is typical on all battlefields since Vietnam.

So much for precision.

Isn't that the point about sub-machine guns? A sniper has to be accurate, while a foot slogger has only to get as many rounds off that he can to inflict maximum damage to the enemy who's doing the same to him!

[Thorvir]

So you are claiming that it was designed to be a precision rifle? Can you show us a source?

Actually, you started making the claim that it wasn't one, so it's up to you to provide your "sources" first.

And, by the way, we're talking about the AR models, not the military M-16 models. You're changing the goal posts.

My sources are the thousands of AR (or millions) owners across the US. The specifications of AR models, stock and conversions. The video evidence on youtube (one posted earlier of which you conveniently ignored) and elsewhere.

Sure, the stock AR may not be the most accurate gun, but it can be precise as the shooter wants it to be, and it was not designed to be inaccurate. That's not how things work, this is just some base common sense that your wild claim is lacking.

[questionmark]

I was giving this thread a ponder or two whilst suffering work, and have a few curious questions to ask, in regard to the weapon being discussed. Okay, I do know that you have slightly different laws in each state, as well as federal laws. This means there will be some differences in parts of the answers, but here goes:

1, What is the cost difference in buying a semi-automatic weapon like the AR 15, compared with a basic hand gun?

2. Is the cost of a firearm dependant on the calibre, make or size of a firearm?

3. What do you actually get when buying a firearm? Aside from the obvious - a gun, duh! - what do you get? A couple of magazines, cleaning kit, carrybag, holsters or what?

4. is there a hard sell to this sort of weapon? Sort of: "Oh you MUST have a rifle for home defence!"" When in fact a simple handgun would do?

5. Okay, I do know there's a waiting period between buying and getting your gun, but is there more to this as a side package? Such as, say lessons in not only being able to fire the thing but also maintaining it?

6. On that regard, does the buyer if they're not a collector have to have mandatory lessons in firing and maintaining their gun?

1. AR-15 from $1700, a good .32 handgun from $600.

2. Yes, on all of the above

3. Depends where you get it, sometimes a gun dealer will sweeten the deal by adding a few perks, sometimes you get the gun with a magazine. You have to shop around.

4. Yes, it can be used against the "evil guvment" when the big revolution comes... besides that none.

5. from state to state, if you buy a used gun from a private party, there is no waiting period, you put the money on the table and you pocket the gun.

6. Only in one state that I am aware of (California) in most other states that is just mandatory if you want a concealed carry license.

Actually, you started making the claim that it wasn't one, so it's up to you to provide your "sources" first.

And, by the way, we're talking about the AR models, not the military M-16 models. You're changing the goal posts.

My sources are the thousands of AR (or millions) owners across the US. The specifications of AR models, stock and conversions. The video evidence on youtube (one posted earlier of which you conveniently ignored) and elsewhere.

Sure, the stock AR may not be the most accurate gun, but it can be precise as the shooter wants it to be, and it was not designed to be inaccurate. That's not how things work, this is just some base common sense that your wild claim is lacking.

The AR models are nothing but M16 with a different receiver, especially if you buy Colt models.

[Taun]

So you are claiming that it was designed to be a precision rifle? Can you show us a source?

The idea behind the M-16 (which you can read in all documentation ) was a lightweight weapon capable of causing large damage to the enemy, at least that is the reason Gen. Curtis LeMay wanted to have the thingy introduced (see Alexander Rose, American Rifle: A biography. 2009, Page 372). Precision fire was never an argument. For that there was the XM21. And to this day there were only two precision variants (Colt 655 and 656) built in small numbers and that have only one thing in common with the M 16, and that is the ammunition. And they were not very successful I might add as they have been substituted by other models (SDM-R and SAM-R).

Both reliability and precision were always a point of criticism of the rifle from the Center for Naval Analyses report to an article in the New York times lately. Some issues have been addressed, others have not.

But as a general issue weapon it does not need any precision. That is for specialists. The average soldier just has to be capable of firing in the general direction of the enemy and up to 3000 rounds per casualty is typical on all battlefields since Vietnam.

So much for precision.

A few comments...

The 3,000 rounds per enemy casualty figure is a bit misleading... It does not reflect as much on the accuracy of the weapon as how deployed... In many firefights, the majority of the

shooting is done in a "suppression" mode... i.e. getting the enemy to keep their heads down, usually while the other fire team is attempting to manuever on the enemies position...

As to the weapons accuracy... On the rifle range, a properly sighted M-16/Ar-15 is a very accurate weapon (or can be)... But you have to be aware of the rounds flight dynamics (it tends to rise

at the mid ranges and drop at the far ranges), the range to the target, wind, etc... PLus the peep sight that it uses requires the firer to get the same "sight picture" every time... Easy to do

with lots of practice, not so easy for the "casual" shooter...

I watched a "shoot off" between an AR-15, an AK-47 and an M-14 once that had three experience shooters... The AR-15 was far and away more accurate at all ranges to the AK and while the M14

beat it at slow rates of fire (take as much times as desired to set the shot up), it defeated the M-14 on 3-5 second sight picture shots...

[questionmark]

A few comments...

The 3,000 rounds per enemy casualty figure is a bit misleading... It does not reflect as much on the accuracy of the weapon as how deployed... In many firefights, the majority of the

shooting is done in a "suppression" mode... i.e. getting the enemy to keep their heads down, usually while the other fire team is attempting to manuever on the enemies position...

As to the weapons accuracy... On the rifle range, a properly sighted M-16/Ar-15 is a very accurate weapon (or can be)... But you have to be aware of the rounds flight dynamics (it tends to rise

at the mid ranges and drop at the far ranges), the range to the target, wind, etc... PLus the peep sight that it uses requires the firer to get the same "sight picture" every time... Easy to do

with lots of practice, not so easy for the "casual" shooter...

I watched a "shoot off" between an AR-15, an AK-47 and an M-14 once that had three experience shooters... The AR-15 was far and away more accurate at all ranges to the AK and while the M14

beat it at slow rates of fire (take as much times as desired to set the shot up), it defeated the M-14 on 3-5 second sight picture shots...

Everything beats the AK-47 as it still was built with the Stalin Bonmot that a soldier lasts average only hours in combat, so why should they teach him to shoot for months. (And also the reason that the Red Army was the first to have automatics as standard issue)

The M 14 does not surprise me as the configuration is not optimal for fast fire.

And, as you said, rounds issued and fired... we have no way to know how much was aimed and how much was fired just holding the gun around the corner. My point was much more that precision firing is not required in a general issue gun, firing in the general direction of the enemy and causing large damage when a bullet finally hits home is much more important.

Edited June 20, 2014 by questionmark

[Ogbin]

Where I live the mosquitos are like raptors with wings. I don't need an AR15, I need 10 of them and some volunteers.

[Benfornow]

I can understand why you would have a shotgun or a pistol if someone breaks into your home, but why would anyone need a weapon of that magnitude?

Magnitude as in rounds per minute or bullet power? Because a standard 270 or 30/06 packs a good deal more energy per shot and if you have semi auto configuration same rounds per minute.

[Yamato]

The AR is surprisingly lightweight, barely kicks at all, has good sights that are extremely easy to use, shoots accurately. All that said, would I want to own one for general purpose? Whether it's home defense, hunting, leisure and entertainment, the Zombie Apocalypse or the Revolutionary War II, I can think of many other better weapons "of that magnitude" I'd much rather have. I want to be able to run through the bogs, using my rifle as a crutch if necessary, get it wet, dirty, manhandled, and still know that it will fire when I need it to.

Plastic = garbage. Plastic is planned obsolescence, the curse of new cars today and people don't even know it.

[Shayde]

Thanks for your answer, Questionmark. Though in regards to question 4 I'm puzzled at the idea that a bunch of civvies armed with semi-automatic firearms could take on a government force who have fully automatic kit, plus missiles, drones, and all sort of lethal gear could even THINK they'd win is a bit beyond me!

Thanks again though. Much appreciated.

[Stellar]

They are not. And they were never meant to be.

What we are seeing here is a different phenomena, and that is that the Colt company suddenly had a huge stock of M 16 parts and no takers, so what better than to "popularize" the item, change the receiver (due to laws on the books since the 1930s) to semi-automatic and sell it to civilians.

That the thing is pretty useless for civilian applications was not mentioned, and then due to politicians who get attention from the Colt company (one group called pro-gun and the other anti-gun) a real hype started stylizing the whole thing to a "symbol of liberty". After that a item, about as useful as a Rubik cube, became a top seller.

I don't see how it's useless to civilians...

[Stellar]

And, as you said, rounds issued and fired... we have no way to know how much was aimed and how much was fired just holding the gun around the corner. My point was much more that precision firing is not required in a general issue gun, firing in the general direction of the enemy and causing large damage when a bullet finally hits home is much more important.

The way the weapons are employed has no bearing on the accuracy of the weapon. The limiting factor in terms of precision on an AR platform is the individual's skill rather than the weapon itself. As for how it's used, it's not used to just shoot in the "general direction" of the enemy, it's used to place a high rate of accurate fire on the enemy. If you want to shoot in the "general direction" of an enemy, you don't need to place magnified optics, or any sights for that matter, on the AR platform.

[questionmark]

The way the weapons are employed has no bearing on the accuracy of the weapon. The limiting factor in terms of precision on an AR platform is the individual's skill rather than the weapon itself. As for how it's used, it's not used to just shoot in the "general direction" of the enemy, it's used to place a high rate of accurate fire on the enemy. If you want to shoot in the "general direction" of an enemy, you don't need to place magnified optics, or any sights for that matter, on the AR platform.

Aimpoint optics are not mounted on general issue M-16 to start with... they all have special barrels and balanced mechanism. That surely does not apply to the AR-15.

Edited June 20, 2014 by questionmark

[S2F]

I can't vouch for an AR15 as I've never fired one though I have fired an M16 (A1,A2 and A3 variants) and I can tell you from many trips to the firing range that the M16's accuracy was adequate. Not great, but it will get the job done from close to mid-range targets. From what I understand the AR15 is a similar platform to the M16 so I'd imagine that 'out of the box' accuracy between the two would be similar as well.

Edited June 20, 2014 by Slave2Fate

[Thanato]

Aimpoint optics are not mounted on general issue M-16 to start with... they all have special barrels and balanced mechanism. That surely does not apply to the AR-15.

I have yet to see a serious number of M16/m4 with out a Holo Sight or a Magnified Sight.

This is with both regular Army, national guard and army reserves. As well as the marines.

The Nature of te M16 makes it a very accurate rifle.

[questionmark]

I have yet to see a serious number of M16/m4 with out a Holo Sight or a Magnified Sight.

This is with both regular Army, national guard and army reserves. As well as the marines.

The Nature of te M16 makes it a very accurate rifle.

M16A4s, yes, there are a few of them I gather, my personal experience ended with the 80s models (of which the AR 15 is a spinoff), and there I had seen very few with any type of optic aids.

[Hawken]

Sometimes I purchase ammo online. You just have to fax or email copies of your FOID and Drivers License and they keep it on file when you order.

I order from a site called http://www.luckygunner.com

[Stellar]

Aimpoint optics are not mounted on general issue M-16 to start with... they all have special barrels and balanced mechanism. That surely does not apply to the AR-15.

I don't know about how it is in America, but here in Canada we have magnified optics attached to our general service rifles, which is the same platform as your M16.

The point still stands, M16s and AR15s are not the spray and pray weapons that you make them out to be. They are indeed quite precise when used within their specifications. Obviously it's not a sniper rifle though.

[F3SS]

Thanks for your answer, Questionmark. Though in regards to question 4 I'm puzzled at the idea that a bunch of civvies armed with semi-automatic firearms could take on a government force who have fully automatic kit, plus missiles, drones, and all sort of lethal gear could even THINK they'd win is a bit beyond me!

Thanks again though. Much appreciated.

Let's look at it in a different way. It is a deterrent. Whether we have pea shooters or equal firepower the government must still consider the implications of warring with the citizens, especially on a revolutionary scale. Can they? Yes but they won't gain any support on the world stage. If push really came to shove there are still 300 million civilian firearms and those are just the legal ones. It won't be as easy and simplistic as missiles and drones. Really, what's the point of destroying cities in a country where the money to rebuild comes from the citizens they are killing? Not to mention who's going to do the rebuilding? Nobody because the revolution won't end until the government is destroyed or if not what do they gain by ruling a wasteland? The largest consideration is whether or not the US military would engage in such a battle against the people. They have a duty to uphold the Constitution, not an evil government. The people they'd be sent to war against are there friends and family. Don't get me wrong. I know orders will be followed on small scale terms but to be ordered to carpet bomb and firefight their own country will be orders not followed. Should such a circumstance arise a military coup would be the more likely outcome.

Long story short, our guns keep our government in check. They have sort of figured out how to overcome that. It's not by force but by attrition. That way by time we are the brown coats they want US to be we never seen it coming.

Aside, I'm no gun expert but I'm inclined to believe accuracy is more about the shooter than the gun and although I understand different guns are designed for different precision today's firearms are not muskets simply launching lead balls through a tube. A few years back a friend brought his new and first handgun to the range. A crappy little semi that cost around $250. He couldn't hit anything. He knew the gun was a 'starter' weapon but was baffled by how off his mark was. So he called in the range worker and asked him to shoot it and see what happens. The experienced range worker was spot on hitting what he aimed for and quipped about the crappy little gangbanger gun but proceeded to give my friend a couple pointers while reminding him that it's all about practice. As for myself I've always been pretty decent. Only shot maybe a dozen times or less but I always light up my target.

Edited June 21, 2014 by F3SS

[Yamato]

Someone tell the Govt of Iraq they're invulnerable to their people because they have bombers and tanks and helicopters, yada yada.

While at the same time we can't understand having enough firepower to protect our homes and families?

Are people trying to break the record for cognitive dissonance?

[+DieChecker]

I have yet to see a serious number of M16/m4 with out a Holo Sight or a Magnified Sight.

This is with both regular Army, national guard and army reserves. As well as the marines.

The Nature of te M16 makes it a very accurate rifle.

When I was in the US Army 15+ years ago we only had iron sights. The exception being the night scope we sometimes could be issued.

Do you know when Canada went with optics?

From what I've just read the US Army uses a kind of laser sight. And not a optical multiplying scope. US Army and Marines are tried to fight mostly as short distance, not long distance. They have the mechanized infantry in Bradleys and also the Abrams tanks to provide long range fire.

[+DieChecker]

do I get my atomic bomb then?

yes,yes, please, please?

What do you plan to do with it?

I generally agree a weapon that not only wipes out your house, but the entire town, really is not comparable to a weapon possibly used for self defense.