In the wake of the post-Sandy Hook media frenzy, it’s unfortunate that the vast majority of pundits have no idea what they’re talking about when it comes to guns. Especially with a firearm like the AR-15 (a.k.a., “Assault Rifle”). Scanning the press coverage, there’s no end of misinformation about the ArmaLite Rifle (AR) design and why it is such a popular firearm in the United States. Hopefully I can put some of that right . . .
1.Versatility
Before the AR-15 rifle made its way onto the market gun owners needed to buy a different gun for each caliber and application.
Whether they wanted inexpensive target shooting (with cheap ammo like .22lr) or deer hunting (with a more substantial caliber like .308 Winchester), owners had to buy a different firearm for each use. Changing calibers was expensive, time consuming, and generally a one-way process.
Shooters were also stuck with their rifle’s ergonomics. If the stock was too long or too short there wasn’t much they could do—except pay a gunsmith to modify the gun. The same was true if you didn’t like the rifle’s trigger or the sights. Changing anything was a major pain in the butt.
With an AR-15, gun owners don’t need a qualified gunsmith to modify or customize their gun. The average shooter can order the parts online and perform the work themselves with little more than a screwdriver, a wrench and a hammer. [Click here for a how-to.]
In fact, there’s only one part of the gun that an owner has to buy through a gun shop: the “receiver” (pictured above). It’s the serialized part. Technically, as far as the ATF is concerned, it is the gun. I’ve assembled all of my own AR-15 rifles from scratch, having purchased only the receiver through a gun shop.
Everything about the AR-15 platform can be changed to fit the specific end user and their intended use. Long range shooters might add a longer barrel and big scope to the gun for increased accuracy. Those interested in home defense might choose a shorter barrel and add a flashlight to the gun. You can even change the grip to fit your hand exactly and make shooting more comfortable.
2. Hunting
The gun control advocates, the media and a certain President are fixated on the idea that AR-15s are “military weapons” that “have no place on the street.” Again and again we hear that they’re not suitable for hunting.
Not true.
Hundreds of thousands of hunters use the AR-15 platform (which is often sold in complete configurations specifically designed for hunting). The gun is rugged, reliable, portable and accurate. What’s more, the ability to quickly and easily change the rifle’s caliber offers American hunters a huge advantage.
I use an AR-15 that fires the relatively new 300 AAC Blackout round for hunting in Texas. When deer aren’t in season I swap my AR’s upper receiver for one that shoots the much cheaper .22lr cartridge. This kind of caliber swap cuts down on costs and makes hunters more accurate (since they’ve been practicing with their hunting rifle all year long).
3. Self-defense
The AR-15 is the civilian version of the M-16 rifle, as adopted by the U.S. armed forces. The M-16 was developed in the wake of World War II. Generals wanted a rifle that would allow U.S. servicemen to put rounds on target accurately at extreme distances (as they did with the M1 Garand in WWII).
That’s the reason the rifle came with a bulky stock and precision “aperture” sights. The Powers That Be wanted their troops to take precise aimed shots from the shoulder. So despite what the media would have you believe, the AR-15 was not “designed” to “spray” bullets. It was created as a precision rifle.
A great offensive weapon makes a great defensive weapon. The AR-15 is an easy-to-use and effective rifle for self-defense, both at close and distant ranges. If someone was defending say, a school, and they were positioned at the end of a corridor, an AR-15 would give them the speed, repeatability (i.e. ammunition capacity) and/or accuracy they’d need to eliminate a lethal threat. Or threats.
Which is why so many Americans depend on the AR-15 for the self-defense. It’s also the reason the police rely on AR-15s to counter active shooters.
Since this is directed at those without knowledge of it, I would include the fact that AR is short for Armalite, not Assault Rifle. Also, that the AR-15 is not an “assault rifle.”
+1. That should be the number 1 thing listed.
+1 Thanks for the info Nick!
I own a Bushmaster AR-15 (25 year celebration edition).
If the AR-15 is not an Assault Rifle, please list here for us names of Assault Rifles. I would be interested.
Paul, OK, here are a few (not a complete list)
Wehrmacht Sturmgewehr 44 from WWII (the first assault rifle)
M16 ( the original one)
M16A1 (the most common one, Vietnam to Cold War)
M16A2 (3 shot burst version)
M4 Carbine
AK47 (the full auto one, not the semi auto knockoffs)
FN FAL
FN P90
SA80
HK 41
AK74 (more recent Russian update)
The common factor is typically full auto capability.
The m 16 was not the original assault rifle, the STG 44 was. It was German, and made at the end of WWII.
Paul, an assault rifle defined by the military is a weapon with select fire capability. Ie it has to have a burst fire or full auto selection. Any civilian model of the ar only has semi auto capability. And as mentioned before, ar stands for armalite rifle, not assault rifle. The media, per usual, is incorrect in the usage of the term assault rifle
Re-naming AR-15’s “assault rifles” is comparable to how the Democrats named health care legislation (Obama Care) the “Affordable Care Act”. It is anything but affordable; we are all going to pay more if for no other reason than there is another middleman – the government. The name is just a way to mask the Democrats true intentions and mislead the uninformed public. This is a standard political ploy Democrats are exceptionally skilled at because people must be tricked into accepting most of their ideas.
Do you seriously doubt the politicians and media didn’t intentionally hijack the acronym AR (Armalite Rifle) and re-cast it as “assault rifle” for the specific purpose of equating it to an evil weapon of war?
Consequentially, anyone who wants to own one must therefore be an evil war monger.
The truth is in all of the inaccurate rhetoric of half truths and lies put out by the gun grabber politicians and their liberal mainstream media propaganda machine to misinform the uneducated masses. The gun grabbers’ ultimate goal is to equate all those who exercise their 2A Right to Bear Arms as inherently untrustworthy and evil. So they must be disarmed.
This is just the beginning. If the gun grabbers gain traction now, the restrictions will only continue to grow – the old slippery slope in action.
Good, well written article…love my AR15′s and AR10′s.
Unfortunately, the below part doesn’t really help the “don’t hate the AR” attempt here…
“In fact, the effect of 5.56 ammunition on live animals was studied using dogs, and the researchers found that the smaller and faster bullets caused more damage than the older and larger projectiles. So, in fact, the 5.56 round is more deadly.”
I agree that some of the reasons the AR-15 is a great platform are counter-productive to our cause. But this is the Truth About AR-15s, and it needs to be the whole truth.
Well ya, what good would a firearm be if it was not lethal against a hunting target or an armed home invader.
One of the biggest complaints that the Military has of the M16 and M4 is that the 5.56 NATO round is not deadly enough. Often we will shoot someone and the bullet will simply penetrate straight through and fail to expand and create the type of damage we are looking for. One of the reasons we are taught to aim for the chest cavity so we can damage the heart and lungs. The military actually designed a new round that expands on impact and causes devastating damage to people, but saying that the normal ball ammunition is actually more deadly than a larger caliber round is absolutely not true.
5.56 is not a ball.
Joe,
The military refers to its full metal jacket bullets as “Ball Rounds” vs say AP or tracer.
Well done! But I believe most people who need the knowledge will never look for it.
Some antis who find the info will use the knowledge to exclaim the AR-15 is much worse than they thought.
Expected anti-rant: No serial number on the part with the barrel? No accountability! The rifle can be changed and the police can do nothing about it!
Blah, blah, blah, blah, cry, snivel, whimper.
Please add that “AR-15″ stands for “Armalite Rifle model 15″ not “Assault Rifle 15″. And please provide links to where TTAG has covered as nauseum that AR-15s are semi-auto (single shot per pull of trigger) and not fully automatic.
+1000
If there’s one phrase I’d like to see wither away it’s “assault rifle.”
My only suggestion is to take out the “Bullshit.” I could care less personally, but these sorts of well-reasoned explanations can be usefully linked in comments and emails to enlighten other people. Why risk offending?
But that’s not what DIFI says and she knows everything about “assault weapons”. I’ll see your logic and raise you one uniformed “expert” opinion!
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec12/feinstein_12-17.html
DIANNE FEINSTEIN: Well, I think you concentrate on both. You concentrate on mental illness and what we can do. You concentrate on safety in schools and those kinds of things.
But small children have a basic right to go to a school and feel safe. And these guns, because they kill large numbers of people very quickly, they aren’t used for hunting, they aren’t hunting weapons. You don’t need them for defense. They are military-style weapons. And they don’t belong in the streets of our cities or our towns.
We don’t need this rifle for defense? Then why are just about all police departments ussued AR platform rifles? If I’m limited to a lever action, then the police should be also. Oh, I forgot that they are as mayor Bloomburg says, “highly trained”. Not a hunting rifle? Ask anyone hunting wild hogs what rifle they are using! This woman’s head is SO FAR up her own butt, it is amazing that we can hear her talk.
I would even throw up this picture, if you could obtain the rights to it:
http://www.nbcmontana.com/image/view/-/17779904/highRes/2/-/maxh/360/maxw/640/-/6o2e1fz/-/Sandy-Hook-Connecticut-school-shooting-4-jpg.jpg
I think that really hammers home the last point – that ordinary police officers rely on it to do good. It’s not the gun that’s the problem, it’s the nut behind the trigger.
(There are other pictures where the officers are in full-on tactical gear, but it looks like they’re part of the military. The pictures of plainclothes officers are better)
Its funny, I was struck by that and many similar images – that of police onsite with ARs and those around them seemingly feeling safe now that they were present. How is the civilian use any different than the LEOs use of the same equipment?
They are highly trained enough to shoot wildly at a fleeing perp in the midst of a crowded NYC street. They are trained so well that they are insanely lucky that the 9 hit were only injured.
“they aren’t used for hunting, they aren’t hunting weapons. You don’t need them for defense. They are military-style weapons. And they don’t belong in the streets of our cities or our towns.”
first of all, frankenstein, i dont give a f–k if they arent hunting weapons; “hunting” in the 2nd amendment is right beside muskets…they both arent there. besides, ARs are very ideal hunting weapons; theyre ergonomic, lightweight, safe, reliable, and accurate.
Oh really? I “dont need”? well you can f–k off. my needs are determined by me and me alone. btw, since you act like the arbiter of my needs mrs finklestein, please provide me with armed secret service protection like what youre entitled to.
and to think these losers represent me…
Absolutely!
The AR-15 was a late 50’s early 60’s re-engineering of the rifle to take advantage of technological advancements and modern concepts; no more, no less.
The AR-15′s progression in the rifle development chain is no different than progression was from the muzzle loading flintlock to the single shot breech loader, to the lever action repeater, to the clip fed auto loaders of the 1930’s and 40’s to the modular ergonomically improved modular (customizable) auto loaders of today (a la AR-15′s).
To apply the logic of today’s gun grabbers’ vis-à-vis the 2A, then the writers of that amendment must have meant the Right would only extend to possession of spears, axes, clubs and bows ‘n arrows; not the scary modern flintlocks of the day.
Now that makes a lot of sense, doesn’t it?
hey dianna, just cause it looks like a military weapon doesn’t mean it is one. That type of assumption is typical of liberal gun haters. There are hunting rifles that fire just as fast, and are some times more deadly.
Freedom ain’t free. Donate to your favorite gun rights orgs.
We have a long fight ahead of us.
With all due respect, I think the time to rely on the political process is coming to an end.
The NRA has, I think, wasted my money in furthering their own political clout while trading away the 2d Amendment every time they negotiate any kind of infringement. There are other groups that I have supported, but things are accelerating, and the political process only works when all parties negotiate in good faith. This administration and it’s fellow travelers don’t.
Save your money and gear up.
There will be a fight.
On NPR (I know, I know) yesterday, some soi-dissant “expert” on AR-15s airily commented that owners “frequently, easily and commonly” convert them to “fully automatic.” We do?
Not only would I not know how, I would not do his because it would make me a felon and preclude me from shooting at ranges with limitations on frequency/interval of fire to ensure no one is somehow using a fully automatic firearm.
I guess I’d better keep my gatling gun under wraps until the latest all blows over.
Interesting how difficult it is to discover whether Nancy Lanza’s guns were securely stored: http://guardamerican.com/index.php/blog/146-crime-punishment/345-sandy-hook-guns-were-secured
Well, there is that whole slide-fire gizmo . . .
Slidefire.. the setup that allows you to operate the trigger to fire individual shots once or repeatedly fire a controlled number of times. One trigger squeeze, one shot, no matter how many times you shoot it in a row. Which is why it is frickin’ legal, and very handy for taking down feral pigs in numbers.
Per the news, Lanza’s mother felt he was slipping away and being a doomsday prepper and a hoarder of guns and food, she chose to bond with him by taking him …. shoooting.
My guess is that she’s the one who taught him how to use the AR-15. And then made sure that he had easy access to it.
Brings a whole new dimension to “Hi Mom, I’m home!”
Really? Ive known plenty of people who have illegally converted AR-15′s and AK’s to full auto. Only one of them went to jail and the only reason he became a convicted felon is he didnt know how to keep his mouth shut. I’m as pro gun as anyone but even I know it is extremely easy to convert them to full auto given a handful of readily available parts and a few readily available tools.
Oh good, they got away with it. Well that just makes it right automatically, doesn’t it. I’m all for gun rights, but the illegal modification of fire arms is dangerous for sure, not to mention wrong.
Great write-up, Nick!
I think the latest hysteria around the rifle is getting out of a control… I just heard on the news hat Cerberus is now selling its stake in Bushmaster because of the shooting? Wow.
Good job Nick. I like the benefit of swapping parts to fit the hunting need. Just like the shotguns you find sold with a basic barrel for deer and another “wingmaster” barrel you can swap in for hunting birds.
No one has proposed taking away the multiple round or semi-auto features that have been common for 40+ years in duck guns for the same reasons that they should focus on behaviour of user and improve mental health care. But that would be too easy for those seeking a quick fix to DO SOMETHING….
I saw Josh Horowitz on the news last night talking about how “pistol grips help keep the barrel down when shooting rapidly”, and some incoherent verbal vomit from which I managed to translate into something to do with “assault weapons like the one used in Sandy Hook are especially dangerous… *incoherent*… hold ammunition in the pistol grip, making it easier to kill lots of people.”
I’m amazed someone would let this imbecile anywhere near a camera.
Last night on FNC, Mara Liasson used the term “multiple weapon high speed clips”. Can that possibly mean something even to her?!!
No, these highly educated people are just spewing words. They have no clue what they’re talking about.
Yeah the part about the 5.56 round being deadlier than say, a .30-06 isn’t going to win any arguement with an anti. Maybe claiming that the AR was (sorta) originally meant as more of a police weapon might fly but a bulket is a bullet to an anti and unless you can convince them that AR’s are just a step up from bb guns they will still see them as evil black murder machines. I mean AR’s were adopted by the Air Force as a weapon for security guards. The industry should consider pushing that fact. Assault weapon? No its a defense weapon. But it’s too late for that I think. Maybe wooden stocks and blued finishes might help. Hell I might even buy one then. Yeah I’m an OFWG. I like mine pretty.
The 5.56 round is most certainly not more lethal than a single round of .308 Winchester or .30-06 Springfield. Whether you look at ballistic gel, kinetic energy, TKO value, momentum, stopping power, barrier penetration, etc. I don’t know of a single metric where the 5.56 exceeds the .308 in lethality except in rapid – fire capability.
+1
It’s a varmint round and an inferior one at that. 243 is a much more lethal round then a 223.
And it doesn’t even exceed the 308 in RPM. The M-14 can spit out the same number or founds per minute as the M-16 in full auto. The rated AR ROF is the same as the M-1 and M-14 in semiauto mode. But as I noted in an early posting that the M-1 could actually sustain 20RPM forever. LLike all systems of its era, the M-1 was over engineered to ensure that it met spec. When you only have paper, pencil and slide rule for design and can’t do finite element analysis you build in a generous safety factor.
It is not as lethal, but it was a compromise. The military found it to be lethal enough, given that benefits gained of decreased weight. The military has recently been taking M14s (7.62) out of storage and upgrading them to EBR (enhanced battle rifle – basically getting rid of wood stocks and adding plastic furniture and rails) to counter AK threats from the enemy. In Afghanastan we have found ourselves in wider area situations and the AK’s 7.62 has a range advantage over the M16/M4 5.56. The have been issuing one M14 per squad.
I had a post explaining it but it got trapped but the essence of the post is that the Army chose the M-16 because it was available and not because of its mythical lethality. The AR-15 was just the replacement for carbine and SMG for Air Force Security police. When “they” decided that the M-14 was not the right rifle it was what they had. It turned out that full auto was a waste of ammo but we were already committed to the 5.56 cartridge. It wasn’t until Iraq and Afghanistan that we admitted that the 308 was a vastly more effective round and started bringing back the M-14 which should really have designated at the M-1-A1. The Garand is the grandfather of all modern military rifles.
the M4/M16 has no problem engaging AKs in afghanistan. In that environment, the AR-type rifle has a unique advantage since it has superior inherent accuracy.
As far as the M14 EBRs, go, they are issued to designated marksman as a interim solution to the DM rifle concept. They are intended to counter taliban armed with higher caliber rifles (SVD, Enfield), PKM machine guns, and mortars by extending the range of a infantry squad.
Now just think what kind of firepower advantage you would have if every member of the squad had an M-14.
have you ever patrolled with all of your gear and a M14 EBR? I have. if all infantrymen were equipped, their performance would be significantly lopsided and reduced for fire and maneuver.
There are plenty of situations where the M4 is more ideal than the M14. In afghanistan, the M14 happens to have the advantage in maximum effective range. but that is not even getting into maintenance, expensive parts, and weight issues.
My dad was a WWII paratrooper. They jumped with so much gear that they could barely get on the airplane. After jumping they walked into combat. They carried the M-1 and a lot ammo. They did pretty well don’t you think?
My dad’s favorite movie was “From Here to Eternity.” He was a prewar regular. I asked him if ever boxed like in the movie. He told why would you ever want to get into a fair fight? You always want an advantage. There was better or worse. There is no such thing as good enough.
they also ditched the unnecessary gear that was interfering with fire and maneuver, leaving no more than 40 lbs of water, grenades, and ammo.
anything they brought with them (a soldiers packing list in WWII was ridiculous and a paratroopers even more so) was mostly lost in the jump over normandy anyways.
ARs were also extensively used by advisors before the Vietnam war kicked off and just the time when air force security forces started adopting it.
It was lightweight, making it ideal for jungle warfare, accurate, had significantly lower recoil than battle rifles, and you could carry more ammo. it was a ideal counter to the AK and far more suitable for mass production than the M14.
The M16 was anything but “defensive’.
Unfortunately, you’re preaching to the choir. The anti’s are not interested in having the record set straight. They’re only interested in those things that support their view of the world. As long as they keep spitting forth their drivel and the MSM continues to parrot that as truth, we’ll be on the defensive.
We’re watching true propaganda and misinformation in action. Goebbels would be impressed at how our “modern-day” media is twisting and turning the truth so effectively. Essentially using our own 1st amendment to destroy the second. Bravo MSM, bravo. One question though, what will they do when the 2nd is gone and they set to work at redefining the 1st. From there, it’s a short hop and a skip to censoring “dissident” media outlets that “hurt the children”. It works both ways. Morgan Freeman already pointed the finger at the media the other day. When guns are banned and axe murders break into schools and theaters, who will get the blame then MSM?
Just posted this article on Facebook to all my anti gun friends.
If I could only afford one rifle, the AR would be my choice. It may not be ideal for every purpose, but it works well enough for anything I’d want to do with it.
You know the old saying……
Tell a LIE often enough and people think it is the truth!
I thought if you wanted 308 you needed to move up to the ar-10 platform. Can you get a magazine fed ar-15 in 308? I thought if you could do it it would only be single shot or something.
I have heard that you can get powerful calibers in the ar-15 but I wonder if they are really operating in semi-auto mode vs single shot. If I could get something suitable to hunt elk then I’d be really interested. It seems the best I can do is 6.5 grendel which is still lacking in my opinion.
Thanks,
Jason
I think the 308 reference was just a reference. When he got into detail he said .30 caliber and .300 AAC blackout.
As far as I know, .308 needs AR 10 platform, but there are .30 calibers that will fit the 15 platform.
Good read. I agree that the Armalite Rifle needs a mention.
The .308 Winchester – the 7.62 x 51 mm – is too long to fit into an AR-15 magazine well. Shooting the 7.62 x 51 requires the AR-10 platform.
The following can be fired from an AR-15 lower with the appropriate upper and magazine:
.22 LR
.223 Remington
5.56 NATO
5.45
6.5 Grendel
6.8 SPC / 6.8 SPC Spec II
300 AAC – 7.62 x 35 mm
7.62 WT
.458 SOCOM
.50 Beowulf
9 mm
There may be more pistol calibers that I forgot, because I don’t see much point in shooting pistol calibers out of an AR-15.
The AR-10 can fire the .308 x 51 family such as the 7mm-08 and .243 Winchester.
As far as pistol calibers, there’s also 10mm, .40S&W, .45ACP, all made by olympic arms.
Then there’s .17HMR, 5.7mm, .450 Bushmaster, .50BMG, .416 Barrett, .338 Lapua, .408 CheyTac (most of these use different magazine locations than the standard magwell, but they still attach to an AR lower).
There are some uppers designed to be used with a side-loading magazine, for larger caliber bullets. All the way up to .50 bmg. Using the lower receiver mag-well is a bonus, but not an absolute.
http://www.tactilite.com/Tactilite-T2-Upper-Receiver-p/t2.htm
There are some to take top loading P90 mags in 5.7mm
Great start, the pro gun, pro individual rights side needs more well reasoned and well presented arguments
the anti gun people have no reasoning in their argument! They don’t even know what their talking about!
slight detour: what is that bag in the pic? i love it!
Eugene Stoner was a genius – no doubt – unless you are one of the guys that don’t like direct impingement designs. I do really like my AR-15.
Mikhail Kalashnikov was also another genius with a slightly different vision of a rifle. How about a truth about the AK-47 article? That would also be an interesting read.
Where Stoner (and his cohorts) were geniuses was in using their aerospace manufacturing knowledge to a) reduce costs and b) make use of the aircraft manufacturing technology (including numerically controlled machining that was the new hotness back then) to reduce unit costs.
Most people who aren’t gunsmiths have absolutely NO idea how much machining went into classic gun designs like the M1/M14 or even the 1903 Springfield. Never mind guns like the M1917 Enfield. If you plop a receiver from those guns down in front of a machinist/engineer and point to a room full of manual machines and say “Duplicate that!” you see some serious heat come off their skulls as they work out how to do it.
The AR platform? Pfah. Simple. So very, very simple. And with most of the parts made from 7075 aluminum, so very much easier on the tooling, which is a big part of the cost of machining steel. No heat treating, which is another big cost in the prior weapons systems.
If I set up a shop of guys today to make M1 Garands the old fashioned way, with manual machines, heat treated 8620 steel, the whole deal… you’d be looking at a gun up in the range of $4K to $6K… per copy, assuming I’m paying the machinists and gunsmiths only about $20/hour. The receiver alone would be up in the $500 to $800 range.
Today, you can get an AR lower/upper combo for under $200. Well, not today — two weeks ago, you could.
Well written & informative, but I think the ones who need to read this will not.
To the anti gun and more directly to the anti-AR they know they are right and they have emotion on their side & that is compelling. It doesn’t matter that techically an assault weapon might be defined as having a bayonet lug and depression on the barrel to allow the use of a grenade launcher. Most of the media use Auntomatic weapon/machine gun/assault weapon to describe the same thing. I had a discussion with someone at work the day the school shootings took place and he said no need for AR’s or Ak’s, etc. I said to him that the AR is the most popular rifle in the US today & is used for anything from home defence to all types of hunting. He said all the more reason to ban them. I also said that this type of stuff is going to keep happening and that both Sept 11 and before that Oklahoma City bombings took place without a single gun used. He still said limiting guns would limit crime.
In the end the NRA isn’t going to save our gun rights and neither are the weak kneed senators or congressmen it is only US & us alone! Proof of that is the AWB of the 1990′s. I own all sorts of guns & I never owned an AR but now I think it’s time to go out and get one simply because I believe it is my right and I choose to exercise it. Going out and buying an AR has nothing to do with what happened at that school nor are you heartless if you own one. I think we can all do ourselves a favor and get one just to show them WE chose to. And another thing, if a pilot had a firearm in one of those planes could it have made a difference on 911? If one teacher or school official had a firearm could it have made a difference? Maybe but at least in these cases we will never know.
Rob Drummond
Hillsboro, NH
If the new town teachers had been armed, it would have made all the difference. I doubt a single child would have perished. As for 911, I’m not sure. The pilots may not have even realized the cabin door was opened until box cutters were upon them
I think you are missing the point in some cases. Semi-auto rifles are incredibly versatile and effective at spitting bullets where aimed, and those bullets happen to do an exceptionally good job of destroying what they hit. Personally, I consider them overkill for hunting… hell, most of the counties I hunted deer in didn’t even allow rifles.. shotguns only.
In terms of home defense, I recall the articles and comments explaining why ARs are the best home defense weapons versus shotguns and handguns, but I don’t see that really being effective in swaying the general public. You can probably get by defending your house with a Mossberg or Glock and be just fine in 99% of HD situations.
Semi-auto, magazine weapons are just incredibly effective versus multiple targets, so they make mass shootings that much more deadly. Its just plain true. Take any mass shooting in recent memory, switch out the weapon with an equivalent revolver or bolt-action (or even a pump action shotgun), and you’d find that more victims would have a chance to get away or subdue the attacker during the reload.
I do think that responsible, designated armed adults in many places would dramatically deter these spates of violence, and reduce the body count.
But you must admit that modern weaponry has enabled nutcases to be more effective.
Yes, same day as Newtown a guy in China stabbed/slashed 22 kids with a knife.. but none died. Guns are more effective than knives, and semi-auto magazine fed guns are more effective than their predecessors..
While banning firearms just won’t work, you need to understand the other side’s viewpoint.. these things are better at killing, and in my opinion do lead to higher bodycounts than other guns.
@Nick..great article! Always enjoy reading your prof pins postings of positive proof for us all!!
@Josh.. Any shooter with a modicum of practice can be pretty darn quick even with a revolver, lever action or bolt gun.
I have 3 revolvers, one of which is a S&W model 67 .38spec. Shooting right handed(natural lefty) I can unload 6 rds in a 10″ circle at 10yrds within 8-9seconds max,usually around 7 secs.
Left handed about the same but a little tighter groups. Now I carry it occasionally with 2 speed loaders of 130gr Winchester PDX, also same in cylinder. Again r/hand 6 rds in 8secs,reload and 6 more in 10-12 secs.
My point is that having a semi auto doesn’t necessarily make you any quicker or slower that someone with a lever gun or a bolt gun.
Some of the mass murderers had prior shooting experience some didn’t.
Having rebuilt or refurbished M16a1′s and A2′s in the military I can tell you there is an enormous amount of work to reconfigure an AR15 to fire full auto.
Milling, filing, fitting, just getting the necessary parts or parts specifications is pretty tough.
By banning semi auto weapons in general you are only going to make a determined killer resort to other weapons or other, usually more horrific, means of accomplishing their goals.
Anyone with the knowledge can go to most any store and get everything they need to reek absolute havoc and never have a firearm of any type in their possession at any time.
If you can find a video of Tom Knapp on the Internet watch it. He is a pro speed shooter with a shotgun, amazingly fast and accurate even with a pump shotgun.
In our area it is illegal to hunt with any rifle,semi or AR or bolt gun chambered in .223 because it is not considered a good enough stopping round to kill a deer with one shot.
Personally I hunt deer and wild hog with a 1924 Moisin Nagant 91/30 chambered in 7.62x54R. Much more lethal and more efficient for a humane one shot kill, and it is a 5 rd bolt operated rifle.
First, A revolver with speed loaders can put shots downrange almost as fast as a semi-auto. If you don’t believe me, then go look up a guy by the name of Jerry Miculek.
Second, high body counts don’t require guns at all. Everyone seems to forget that in NYC, where guns are oh-so-smugly controlled, there were 87 people killed in a mass murder done with a plastic bottle of gasoline and two matches. Go research the “Happy Land Social Club” fire. Up until that time, it was the highest body count mass murder in US history.
not only that but there is also the ubiquitous pump action shotgun.
with a ” elmer fudd” looking pump action shotgun and 00 buck (or other cartridge with superior penetrative capabilities), you can fire five cartridges containing nine 33 caliber pellets (00 buck as a example) in a matter of seconds and reload in a matter of seconds. that is 45x 33 caliber pellets in a matter of seconds, far more efficient than a submachine gun in roughly equivalent 9mm (.35 inch).
That’s why gun shops need to be capable of finding out if your doctor thinks your clinically insane. So the nuts can’t get the guns. But don’t take our guns or clips away, deal with the real problem, instead of using the gun as a scape goat.
I really don’t know as much as I should about AR’s(don’t own one). This article was an excellent ripost to all the Piers Morgans in the press who have been educated far beyond their intelligence.
Thank you Nick, for upping my I.Q..This is a keeper.
Great article
Also I like you pointing out that AR does not mean assault rifle that is a massive pet peeve when I hear them called that
Nick,
What are the makes and models of the hearing protector and the tactical bag shown in the top photo? Thanks.
Nick:
Great article but you propagate some myths and misinformation on the origins of the AR-15/M-16.
The Air Force adopted the AR platform in the late 1950s to replace the M-2 carbine and M-2 Grease Gun used by the AF security police. Armalite took their failed entry for the M-1 replacement and adapted the platform to meet the AF spec. (An example of modularity) The Army decided that the M-14 was “unsuitable” for jungle warfare because of its size, the difficulty in using full auto and the wooden stock. Surprisingly the Army and Marine Corp did not find the weight, wood stock and lack of full auto a liability in the Pacific theater during WWII. We were in the middle of war, the Army wanted full auto and the AR platform was on contract and ready to buy.
SLA Marshall had a big influence on the decision to go with fully automatic rifles. His research purported to show that many American soldiers did not fire their M-1s because they didn’t think that their individual fire had a meaningful effect on the outcome of a battle. Soldiers equipped with BARs or SMGs were more active participates. Therefore, if you give everybody the opportunity to “spray and pray” you will be more effective. Post Vietnam analysis showed that this wasn’t true, and that charitably, Marshall had misinterpreted his results. Infantry using good tactics and semi-automatic fire almost always wins the battle. This should have been obvious since even using short bursts an M-16 has fewer trigger pulls per mag than semiauto mode and auto fire is sending rounds basically to the same target. The three round burst mode is designed to make up for the poor lethality of the 5.56 NATO round.
While you give good reasons for the popularity of the AR-platform the real is because it is the weapon that serviceman learned to love. That is the same reason that WWII vets snapped up the M-1 for sport shooting and hunting when it became available through the CMP in the late 1950s.
preaching to the choir…. the uninformed will have a problem with the AR-15 because it looks like a M-16 / M-4. The ordinary citizen fails to understand why a weapon that looks just like the one their uncle / grand dad / brother carried in Vietnam, needs to be used by a civi….you can get into the semantics of assault rifle or carbine definition, etc….that’s just splitting hairs…. I know people who get flustered because everyone calls a photocopy machine and photocopies; a Xerox machine or Xerox copies…misinformation becomes accepted.
Very good Nick!
Yes there is the confusion between full auto and semi-auto rifles as mentioned, but as Josh says, and I agree, a semiauto with a 20 or 30 round mag allows the operator to put a large number of rounds down range in very short order, making them that much more “lethal” than bolt guns or shotguns. Most people do not see the need for a semiauto rifle for hunting, and quite frankly, other than varmints or hogs, I don’t either. These are the perceptions that most affect the gun banners, and I haven’t seen a cogent argument yet as to why, other than versatility, AR10 or AR15 platforms are useful hunting platforms. The anti argument is very emotional and visually compelling, the pro argument not so much.
One pull of a 12 gauge trigger on a chambered 00 buck shell launches nine projectiles at once. No AR will do that. Four 00 buck shells have more projectiles than a 30 round magazine. How fast can someone cycle four shells through a pump shotgun? If the goal is to spray projectiles as quickly as possible, then the shotgun is definitely the way to go.
But AR 15′s are not the only semi automatics with high capacity mags. Heck, I was offered high capacity mags for a bolt action rifle at my local gun shop. So mark m., what do you say to that?
Very informative Nick. Thank you.
For those that asked, the bag in the photo is the Hazard 4 Evac Plan B.
AR15s are awesome home defensive weapons. when loaded with anything but M855 rounds, they have less of a tendency to over penetrate than even handguns and shotguns.
Very interesting discussion.
I worked for DoD prime contractors as a weapons designer and analyst. Operations Analysts (and they were very influential with Robert McNamara, SecDef during the Viet Nam War) believed that wounding enemy soldiers rather than killing them imposed a greater logistics burden and was more demoralizing to their comrades. (Gen. William T. Sherman believed pretty much the same thing and he came to the conclusion without the mathematical stuff.) This is consistent with my belief that the 5.56 or .223 is not an especially effective round for anything but varmint hunting. It really was designed as a method of inflicting wounds rather than killing people. That is damn dangerous to our soldiers. The OpAnal guys knew that even at degraded effectiveness the enemy remained dangerous for some time.
My bottom line opinion on the AR-15 in .223: a mediocre weapon for home defense, an inhumane one for hunting anything but very small game.
Then why, plato bunker, are they used for boar hunting? if it is inhumane to use on a deer, using on a wild boar will get you killed.
Most of what you say is not relevant to the current debate. Hunters did just fine for years with Kentucky Long Rifles, muskets, breech loaders, bolt action rifles, double barrel shotguns, and lever action rifles. The gas operated killing rifles like the AR-15 have never been “required” to hunt well or defend a home. Large magazine rifles were never needed for hunting. The so-called advantages here for hunters are outweighed by the social disadvantages that these guns are mass killing weapons. The Second Amendment lets you ban individual guns. Let’s ban all gas operated rifles and move along. Muskets were good enough when the Second Amendment was adopted. They are good enough now.
Agreed. Also, the media encourages these killings by giving the assailant the attention he wants, with 24/7 coverage on radio and television. News organizations should be limited to print only, on manual presses – the hand-cranked printing press was good enough when the First Amendment was adopted, it’s good enough now. And because poor mental health is a factor in all of these cases, we need to be able to easily commit eccentric and potentially dangerous individuals to sanitariums – binding and beating the mentally ill in veritable prisons was good enough in the founders’ day, it’s good enough now. Your logic is impeccable.
First the question of “can the AR-15 be used for hunting?” is irrelevant to the Second Amendment. It is only brought up by people who think that because they don’t see the need for one, others don’t have a need either. When it is brought up, the counter is of course that it IS used for hunting, and the usual unspoken part of the response is…but that has nothing to do with the Right to Bear Arms. Your assumption that a large capacity magazine isn’t need for hunting is also an assumption unsupported by fact. If I am on the ground dealing with a sounder of wild or feral boars, I want as much ammunition ready to feed into a chamber as fast as possible. I want the same for any dangerous game or predator, like a mountain lion or perhaps the two-legged slimebag that the 5.56 or .300Blk in rifle or 9mm/.45 cal in pistol will handle– but might need more than a couple of rounds to take down. BTW, I hunt with a 20 round magazine in my AR because it is MY judgement that it is sufficient, and it is easier to carry and handle than a 30 round.
Now, do I really need to point out what is horribly wrong with:
“Muskets were good enough when the Second Amendment was adopted. They are good enough now.”
…or have you reconsidered?
How folks like to use the AR-15 is not really relevant. The weapon has proven to be dangerous as have other gas operated weapons. It would be easy to ban them all. Would such a ban be legal? Yes, fully automatic weapons and sawed off shot guns have been illegal since the 1930s.
Three key points: (1) There is no “right to hunt” in the Second Amendment; (2) There is no “natural right” to own guns. The Second Amendment creates a “constitutional right” to own guns, but “mistakes” in the Constitution like the Second Amendment can be corrected by right-thinking individuals; (3) The Constitution is silent on the question of “self-defense.” The law on self-defense is created by statute.
A “fair” rule on self-defense would be this: if you believe that another person poses an imminent danger to your life, you can shoot him. But there is a price, ten years in prison without parole if you plead guilty to the crime of “self=defense with a firearm.” If you make the state take you to trial on the charge, the penalty would be life in prison.
Fair to say here that when you choose to shoot another person in “self-defense” you have said your life is worth more than another life. That is fine if you believe it. But there should be a cost associated with that decision.
That makes no sense. Your choice is to be killed or to go to prison for 10 years or life. “Fair to say here that when you choose to shoot another person in “self-defense” you have said your life is worth more than another life. That is fine if you believe it.” With the possible exception of yourself, most people would believe that. For whatever bizarre reason, most folks would not equate their life with the life of the guy who, unprovoked is trying to kill them. I have to assume your comment is some sort of satire.
So how long have you been working undercover for the BATFE?? I guess Eric Holder is maybe your uncle or cousin?
Why in hell would you spout some off base statist, fascist crap like that unless you are trying to undermine the Constitution and spying on us to report us to the FBI !!!!!!
So what is it??
Or maybe you are just that damn ignorant!!
HH’s ramblings provide a target rich environment. The equivocation in comparing someone taking a life in self-defense to those who would do so in commission of a crime is most delicious to the logician in me, so I will save it for last. But first, let us deal with the low-hanging fruit.
RE: fully automatic weapons and sawed off shot guns have been illegal since the 1930s.
Putting the vagaries of the term ‘sawed off’ to the side, if HH means modern, non-black powder shotguns manufactured (vs. modified) with barrels shorter than 18” and overall length shorter than 26”, then they have, along with fully automatic weapons always been legal if one is willing and able to undergo the licensing process. Since 1986, no new automatic weapons in the US have been allowed to enter the sphere of private-citizen ownership, but there is a large number of such equipment made prior to 1986 still owned, bought, traded and taxed in the hands of American citizens. Licensed is not “illegal”.
RE: (1) There is no “right to hunt” in the Second Amendment. (2) There is no “natural right” to own guns. The Second Amendment creates a “constitutional right” to own guns, but “mistakes” in the Constitution like the Second Amendment can be corrected by right-thinking individuals; (3) The Constitution is silent on the question of “self-defense.” The law on self-defense is created by statute.
Ah, semantic dilettantes. Aside from curious regurgitation of prior comments in point #1 (something not in question at this time BTW) #2 and #3 stand in stark contrast to a large body of legal discussion and philosophical history reaching back about two millennia of Western thought. One of the most recent and explicit expressions of same is found in the famous “Heller” case:
…it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it ―shall not be infringed.‖ As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), ―[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed… [District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S., 128 S.Ct. 2783, 2797-98 (2008)]
Thus HH or others may ARGUE that the 2nd Amendment doesn’t describe a “natural right”, but they clearly do so in the face of a very large body of historical and current evidence to the contrary. To simply assert declaratives #2 and #3 as ‘true’ without support–and in light of the extant body of knowledge at hand, bespeaks the massive “genetic fallacy” of such a claim: “Because HH says so” does not make it ‘true’. Thus HH’s assertions in #2 and #3 are not only in error, but unworthy even of serious consideration.
It doesn’t matter where HH’s beliefs-stated-as-fact or inability to distinguish differences in morality between taking a life in self-defense or taking one in a criminal endeavor come from. Whether they have origins in Near-Middle-Far Eastern mysticism, spring from some naïve literalist, low-end theology driving a minor Christian sectarian stance, are products from a logic-impoverished liberal arts education, or are merely hangovers from some 1960’s kumbah-frickin-ya vegan/humanist love-in. Whatever the ‘reason’, I believe it is “fair to say” HH is entitled to his beliefs, but not entitled to state them as facts in lieu of rational and supported argumentation in a public forum without expectation of derisive admonition.
and airplanes are dangerous! 9/11 was a tragedy that must not be repeated! ban all airplane use in the USA! land and sea travel was good enough in 1780 and is good enough today!
Harry, Harry, Harry. I will try not to reach through the computer screen an yell this in your face. THEY ARE NOT JUST KILLING WEAPONS. That is just the bull crap the liberals try to feed to little children and gullible elderly folk, when they use things like “high speed, multifire clips” like they actually know what they are talking about. I shot an AR 15 just yesterday, and I am not on the news in the wake of my very own mass killing, am I? NO. So go settle down, grow a pair, and find out what kind of breaks a Kentucky long rifle would actually cause in your shoulder, seeing as its a mans gun.
I built an AR in 6.8 SPC with and 18 inch barrel and have found it to be the best deer rifle ever for my hunting. I am more comfortable fulfilling my humane obligation to have a high probability of a first-shot kill with the .277 bullet than I was with the .223 in the normal ARs. The family bonus is that the recoil is low enough that my wife may want to use it for her deer hunting.
If I want to plink, I have a .22 adapter for use with a 5.56/.223 upper.
One shot is all that is necessary with my Browning bolt action .270
probably in a few years a hunter will tell pf getting an elk, Got me on of those drone’s I operate the thing from my front room with a keyboard, had a it fitted with a winch, Now I fly the drone over the elk shoot him winch him up into the drone, Drop the elk off at the butcher shop and the hide and head off at the Taxidermist. withing 2 days I have the steaks in the deep freeze
the hide and elks head on the wall in the den, shure beats the heck out of all that fresh air and excersise, But there are so many drones in the air 2 crashed into each other day and the Bear got away, but came back and cleaned up the scraps from the crash
Huh?
I see references to the China shooting and people dismissing it because no one died. That is true, but in Aug 2010 2o children did die in China, and several adults to a sword wielding nut job in another primary school. Not only did he kill 20 children he injured 50 others children and adults. They recently also stated China’s home invasion rate has climbed to 50% over ours as did Europe’s after their bans were instated. Crazy is crazy, and the results are always sad. We all know there is a big change coming and it won’t be for the better, but I hope at least the family’s get a false sense of relief from the new laws to help ease their pain if nothing else. Keep in mind the Boy in Aurora Colorado at the movies theater had enough explosives to level the building, for some reason he went with the rifle instead, I guess you could say his rifle saved lives that day though it would be insensitive.
I greatly enjoyed this article but one thing stuck out to me as false. You talk about “the powers that be” wanting an accurate long range rifle like the M1 Garand. The .223 cartridge was developed because studies showed that soldiers in combat are very inaccurate and the only way to make them better is to put more bullets downrange. In every single war the united states has increased the amount of shots fired per kill, with around 250,000 per insurgent in our most recent wars. The .223 is perfect for this because it has light recoil and they are inexpensive, not to mention you can carry a lot of them. If they wanted a more accurate rifle for precision shooting they would have stuck with the M14 which was designed with that in mind. AR-15s and .223 ammunition are designed to allow soldiers to put more lead downrange while still maintaining the same mediocre accuracy soldiers in combat have always had.
Very accurate rifle,have a “build rifle”,a Surplus Arms & Ammo lower,with a Palmetto State Armory lower parts kit,the upper is a Sherluk heavy barrel M-4,A-3,with front post sight,red dot sight,and fold down rear sight,shoots just as good as any other big name rifle I have shot,as long as it is Mil-Spec they shoot alike,but some gun snobs will beg to differ!Keep your powder dry.
Malarchy, the AR 15 was designed to kill enemy soldiers mostly at close range, iis designed to be used from the hip as well as shoulder designed for that and some longer range killings. The US Army learned how well the Germans used their sturm gewehr (Assault Automatic weapon) that we also need them to lay down a large swatt of fire on a target. The M-1 that I fired in basic in 1958 ( I was a willing draftee) was still designed mostly for WW-1 trench warfare. They started to use the move and fire tactic in WW 2, the M-1 did not lend itself very well for this tactic because it was heavy and hard to fire from the hip. The tactic now is to lay down as much fire on target and move to the the next defensive position. The AR 15 fired by the Sandy Hook killer, fas fired from the hip, he used 30 bullet mags. and was able to fire about 156 shoots in less than 5 minutes. This is what the AR 15 Bushmaster was desined to do all day long without overheating. I keep hearing that it uses the same amo as a 22 rifle You can buy a very nice 22 semi auto rifle for about $250.00, my wife bought one recenly for target practic at Dick’s sporting Goods. Why than pay $985.00 for a AR 15. I was told by an expert that the best home defense gun is a cheap shoot gun.
Hi I enjoyed reading all of the comments good or bad above.I recently built my first ar 15 it was a fun project.I plan on bringing it to the shooting range for target shooting.When i read and hear all of the reasons for banning the assault rifle and high capacity magazines would that have prevented sandy hook.There have been well over 60 mass shootings in the united states in the last 30 years did anyone running schools learn anything from them.Where was the surveilance video showing adam lanza getting out of his car in the parking lot.If a person was monitoring screens he could have seen it and maybe called the police who might have responded quickly enough to prevent him from getting in.As far has saying how lethal the ar 15 is and it should be banned im not buying that one.A glock 19 with 5 33 round magazines could have done the same thing maybe allot faster with better concealment.You just cant miss someone running or walking toward a building with a riffle not to easy to hide your intentions.Most politicians passing these bills to make law abbiding citizens look like criminals know nothing about firearms.They are trying to passify these poor parents who lost those beautiful little children.If one of them were my sons or daughters i would be suing the state of connecticut for not providing enough security at that school and any school for that matter.You have to stop the adam lanza,s from getting in the school not worrying how fast they can change magazines.making the magazine capacity to 10 rounds will only make a mentally sick person bring more magazines that can be changed faster than a politician thinks.They have a fire alarm and sprinklers in a school how many fires have there been in schools, What is the ratio of shootings to fires.The boy scout motto is be prepared mass shootings in schools will happen again will our politicians and government learn.Fire arms are a small part of the problem the type used does not matter they all can kill 100,s more can do it as well or better than the armalite ar 15 riffle.one child killed is to many if any politicians are reading this lets pass a bill to keep mentally derainged shooters from being able to enter a school with security.Not punish law abbiding gun owners with bans.
JIM IS RIGHT