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

[E4 No More]

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.

I think that you need to qulify your statement a bit better here. People who've faced a MG-42, for instance, would probably disagree, and machinegunners tend to be the first ones targeted. The more rounds thing was also due to hit probability studies, IIRC.

[Omega]

 AR is Armalite Rifle, not assault rifle, not automatic rifle or any other name given it.  And while I think an auto has a place in combat I would rather stay semi-auto unless its a crew serve weapon.  An M4 in auto is a  psychological weapon but hard to be real effective with it due to its muzzle jump.  A bit better with a tripod, but harder to maneuver with one attached.

[graycrait]

AR's remind me of compound bows, ugly in their efficiency - nearly Glock-like - without soul.       

[Guest tangojuliet]

 AR is Armalite Rifle, not assault rifle, not automatic rifle or any other name given it.  And while I think an auto has a place in combat I would rather stay semi-auto unless its a crew serve weapon.  An M4 in auto is a  psychological weapon but hard to be real effective with it due to its muzzle jump.  A bit better with a tripod, but harder to maneuver with one attached.

whats funny is my grandfather always thought it was army rifle 15 LOL until i told him it was armalite LOL

Edited March 6, 2015 by tangojuliet

[nightrunner]

AR is Armalite Rifle, not assault rifle, not automatic rifle or any other name given it. And while I think an auto has a place in combat I would rather stay semi-auto unless its a crew serve weapon. An M4 in auto is a psychological weapon but hard to be real effective with it due to its muzzle jump. A bit better with a tripod, but harder to maneuver with one attached.

The movie Act of Valor, the acting was done by actual Navy SEALS supposedly. I believe it, the dialogue scenes weren't as smooth as most Hollywood movies, but the fight scenes were amazing. Anyways, if you pay attention in that movie, not one time did they go full auto with their M4s. It was always semi auto, make your shots count. It is amazing to see how efficient they are at what they do.

[DaveTN]

I think that you need to qulify your statement a bit better here. People who've faced a MG-42, for instance, would probably disagree, and machinegunners tend to be the first ones targeted. The more rounds thing was also due to hit probability studies, IIRC.

My point was that the people that believe you shouldn’t have an “assault Rifle” aren’t going to change their mind no matter what “name” you put on it. I think it sounds silly to make an argument that an AR-15 is somehow less deadly than an M-16; it’s an uninformed stance. Yes, my .223 AR is deadly; my .308 AR is even more deadly than an M-16 in the hands of a skilled marksman.

But I have a right to have them. I don’t hunt either and I don’t want to have to pretend I do.

[turkeydad]

I think it was designed to separate me from any money-fied type stuff I might have in my wallet. . oops saw someone beat me to that one. . .

Edited March 7, 2015 by turkeydad

[Ted S.]

I could be wrong, but the AR-15 was designed to fire 5.56...

[raildog]

The AR15-M16 & AR10 were designed to kill communist. Then in the 90s early 2000 were reperp. to kill towel heads at least that is what the U.S.Army taught me

[Guest tangojuliet]

I could be wrong, but the AR-15 was designed to fire 5.56...

originally the ar  was designed in 308  as the ar 10 the ar 10 was for the most part a failure during the late 50s early 60s the us army was looking for a rifle chambered in 223 aka 5.56  so the ar10 was scaled down to the ar 15 and designed to fire the 5.56 

[Guest thirtyfiverem336]

My point was that the people that believe you shouldn’t have an “assault Rifle” aren’t going to change their mind no matter what “name” you put on it.

I totally agree with what you're saying with one caveat. If we quit calling it an "assault rifle," quite acknowledging that it is an "assault rifle" and look at people who call it that like they're nuts (the way we do people who call magazines "clips" which we've done a great job of fixing and informing folks about), then people who don't know ANYTHING about firearms won't be inclined to stand against it. To you, to me, to every hardworking Tennesseean on this forum, that thought makes no sense because we know the difference. An AR-15 is an AR-15 no matter what it's called. But to a liberal raised in a big city who never hunted and who doesn't understand how pork gets on the table, but eats it anyway, they know it as an "assault rifle" and that's bad.

 

So if you're saying INFORMED folks aren't going to change their minds over semantics, I agree. This accounts for about 10 percent of the gun haters out there, in my estimation based on the attitudes of my old liberal college buddies. But if you're saying uninformed folks won't (and many Americans are uninformed about firearms, as strange as that may sound to those of us on this forum), I respectfully disagree. I'd argue a large majority of folks who oppose "assault rifles" are uninformed about what they even are.

[A.J. Holst]

How about the "well informed"? In any retailer or gun show, legal buyers and gun enthusiasts (many of whom I assume are safe shooters) use terms like assault rifle, tactical and my favorite CLIP.

Do I give my potentially unwanted .02 or let then live in blissful ignorance.

In civilian hands all rifles are purposed for sport for primary use.

Any rifle can be used for assault. In civilian hands to protect hearth and home from invaders of ALL kinds.