"The AR-15 was designed for one purpose...."

[Will Carry]

"to kill massive amounts of people very quickly."  Preaching to the choir....

 

This is the propaganda that the anti-gun people are spewing all over the media. First of all they are talking about the M-16. The AR-15 is a semi-automatic version not used by the military. Most importantly, the M-16 was NOT DESIGNED TO KILL! It was designed to save soldier's lives and win battles. The M-14 was designed to kill. They didn't care how heavy it was or how fierce the recoil was or how heavy the 7.62 ammo was. They just wanted a rifle that would deliver 5000 ft/lbs of muzzle energy and be accurate up to 800 yards.  The M-16 was the first rifle in U.S  history designed with the soldier in mind. It was light weight, low recoil with lighter smaller rounds so you could carry more ammo. It was designed to cover 0-300 yards. We have other weapons that will reach out to 800 yards. So to say that the AR-15 was designed to kill is just  wrong. It is the son of a rifle that was designed to save lives and win battles.

Edited March 1, 2015 by Will Carry

[seax]

^{If you go back to the beginning the seminal design was for a low recoil, accurate target rifle before the military version was designed. .  Could be wrong. Also the Military rifle and caliber was to lower the weight of rifle and ammo. The caliber was meant to wound the enemy as opposed to killing them.}

[Raoul]

You should probably read "The Gun" by C.J. Chivers.

 

The US Army was looking for a weapon in the early years of the Viet Nam war that would enable soldiers to be mobile, quick, and deadly. They chose the Stoner design because it was available and they were in a hurry.

Smaller rounds enabled more ammo per soldier.

To say the M16 version wasn't designed to kill is a little disingenuous.

[Will Carry]

You should probably read "The Gun" by C.J. Chivers.

 

The US Army was looking for a weapon in the early years of the Viet Nam war that would enable soldiers to be mobile, quick, and deadly. They chose the Stoner design because it was available and they were in a hurry.

Smaller rounds enabled more ammo per soldier.

To say the M16 version wasn't designed to kill is a little disingenuous.

I didn't say the M-16 wasn't a deadly rifle. I'm saying the same thing you said. It was designed to be light, low recoil with smaller lighter ammo so the soldier could carry more.

[Raoul]

This of course was in reaction to the rather remarkable success of the AK design. Which was the result of those marvelous Nazis and their StG 44.

[JWC]

I think it was designed for fun.

[runco]

I think it was designed to drain my funds!

[DaveTN]

I think that’s a pretty accurate assessment of the M-16 or any battle rifle. The AR-15 is just a neutered version.

The 5.56 NATO is a terrible battle round and even worse hunting round.

I own that type of rifle in .22, .223, and .308.

[Caster]

Mine were designed for shootin' left wing hippie scum.....err uhhh, I mean Zombies. Edited March 2, 2015 by Caster

[Wyldk2]

Mine were designed for shootin' left wing hippie scum.....err uhhh, I mean Zombies.

Caster, We know what you mean.

 

Zombies and left wing anti-gunners could be construed as one and the same. They lack brains, and they want to drain you of yours.

 

Zombies, i can see killing. Wouldn't want to kill the left-wing hippie scum as you say, because that would only fuel the fire. Kill them with kindness, and convert them to our cause.

[Guest tangojuliet]

oh no the caliber debates are coming i can fell it btw the ar was originally designed in 308  but the US Army requested 5.56 

[espacef1fan]

All guns are designed to kill, something.

 

Some are better at it than other, but the genesis of firearms was in battle to kill the enemy more effectively.

 

Humans being the crafty creatures we are discovered the practical and sporting applications in due time.

 

I'll end the caliber debate. Anyone who thinks a certain caliber is a crap round, volunteers to take said round to the chest, or at a minimum the thigh... 

 

Ive yet to have takers all the way down to 22LR

[camp]

I guess I'v been wrong all along , I thought they were designed to fire a bullet.

[Ugly]

Caster, We know what you mean.

Zombies and left wing anti-gunners could be construed as one and the same. They lack brains, and they want to drain you of yours.

Zombies, i can see killing. Wouldn't want to kill the left-wing hippie scum as you say, because that would only fuel the fire. Kill them with kindness, and convert them to our cause.

Ha! Lefties would be a waste of ammo. But converting them is as likely as converting a zombie.

[Omega]

"to kill massive amounts of people very quickly."  Preaching to the choir....
 
This is the propaganda that the anti-gun people are spewing all over the media. First of all they are talking about the M-16. The AR-15 is a semi-automatic version not used by the military. Most importantly, the M-16 was NOT DESIGNED TO KILL! It was designed to save soldier's lives and win battles. The M-14 was designed to kill. They didn't care how heavy it was or how fierce the recoil was or how heavy the 7.62 ammo was. They just wanted a rifle that would deliver 5000 ft/lbs of muzzle energy and be accurate up to 800 yards.  The M-16 was the first rifle in U.S  history designed with the soldier in mind. It was light weight, low recoil with lighter smaller rounds so you could carry more ammo. It was designed to cover 0-300 yards. We have other weapons that will reach out to 800 yards. So to say that the AR-15 was designed to kill is just  wrong. It is the son of a rifle that was designed to save lives and win battles.

And I say so what! That is why I own a few ARs, to have the capability of taking on a large contingent of opposing forces should the need arise. It is my Constitutional Right and my American Duty, which I consider a privilege, to be able to come to her defense. All this BS talk about sporting arms has nothing to do with our 2nd Amendment rights, we need to start defending our rights to self defense and defense of the Constitution; not sporting arms. All these anti-gun laws are illegal in my book, the acts themselves should be regulated not the equipment. Its already illegal to rob, and murder with or without a gun so why does the gun need regulation?

[deerslayer]

I'll end the caliber debate. Anyone who thinks a certain caliber is a crap round, volunteers to take said round to the chest, or at a minimum the thigh... 

 

Ive yet to have takers all the way down to 22LR

 

I wouldn't volunteer to take an airsoft round, but that doesn't make it worth a crap for shooting people who want to kill you. 

[nightrunner]

I wouldn't volunteer to take an airsoft round, but that doesn't make it worth a crap for shooting people who want to kill you.

Amen.

The whole, not volunteering to take a round makes it adequate, argument is the dumbest thing ever. Nobody in their right mind wants to get shot but some calibers are better for certain applications than others.

[Guest tangojuliet]

yall need to read the wound and kill reports for mk 318 and mk 262  5.56 ammo 

[Omega]

yall need to read the wound and kill reports for mk 318 and mk 262  5.56 ammo 

I have, and seen many an x-ray and seen close up how good that ammo is, even at distances far beyond what the M4 was intended.  Make no mistake, many a larger caliber would do a better job, but that does not mean that the 5.56 is a bad round.  I feel it is a good trade off, light weight base load, round capacity and effectiveness on target.  Even the soviets have developed a smaller caliber for their weapons, 5.45×39mm, as well as the Chinese 5.8×42mm. 

[Guest thirtyfiverem336]

Nomenclature is a frightening thing. Years ago, when Charles Grodin had a talk show on one of the news channels (he was awful), they would cut to commercials and the lead out would be a man on the street. Grodin would say "be right back" and the camera would show a person answering a question. One time, EVERY respondent said something like "Yes, I think hate speech should be banned," or "There's no place for hate speech," etc.

 

Point? They didn't show the question being asked to these folks on the street, but based on the answers, I know it. "Do you think hate speech should be legal in America?" Not, "Do you believe Americans should have free speech even when it offends others?"

 

Because if you ask those questions to most Americans, you'll get two different answers. Americans oppose "hate speech." They believe in "free speech."

 

Which brings my complicated point back to the AR-15. Why not call it a "defensive rifle" instead of an "assault rifle?" By allowing the loons on the left to dub it as an "assault weapon" we let them win the debate among uninformed folks before the question mark lands on the question. "Do you think Americans should be allowed to own ASSAULT weapons?" To a non-gun owner, no. They don't want Americans being "assaulted" with deadly weapons. But ask many non-gun owners, "Do you believe Americans whose lives are being threatened with deadly force should be allowed to use their firearms in self defense?" and among a good portion of them (the non-nuts) you get a different answer.

 

By calling the AR an "assault rifle" the debate among uninformed folks is lost before the question is complete. Call it a "defensive rifle" and that changes. It's a battle of words. They do matter.

[Peace]

^^^ yes, right, correct, spot on!  Semantics matter.  Using language to help win someone over is not being "soft".  It is being smart.

[DaveTN]

I don’t let the term assault rifle bother me; that’s what it is. The fact that because it’s not a machine gun somehow makes it less deadly is ridiculous. If anything semi-auto fire will results in more lethal hits.

It won’t make any difference to the people that worry about stuff like that. A shooter at elevation above a target rich environment with a scoped heavy caliber bolt action hunting rifle would rack up a bigger body count than an AR or AK shooter. Of course those folks would have hunting rifles banned if they thought they could get it done.

[Trekbike]

 

By calling the AR an "assault rifle" the debate among uninformed folks is lost before the question is complete. Call it a "defensive rifle" and that changes. It's a battle of words. They do matter.

 

Agreed.   I don't think you'll find many folks on this site calling it an assault rifle.  That is a term the uniformed and agenda driven folks use.  

[bucnball]

Yea , Verily I prefer the descriptive term defensive firearm.. Suits my purpose just fine .Thanks!

[raildog]

I like the MSR15 Modern Sporting Rifle