Why AR-15?

[Andy Chadwick]

Had an anti-gunner ask me the other day why someone would want to shoot an AR-15 style rifle instead of a more "conventional" (her words), non-military style like the Rem 700. She asked about the relative advantages and functional benefits of the Ar-15.

Much to my dismay, I didn't have a satisfactory answer for her. How would ya'll answer her question?

 

[Hkmp5sd]

You could inform her that the Remington is also a military rifle, used by military and police as a Sniper Rifle. They are different weapons with different applications. Kind of like why don't you wear your golf shoes while bowling. They are both shoes and with the spikes, you'd be less likely to slip and fall.

The AR is lighter, shoots a smaller (less recoil) cartridge, and for most people, is easier to shoot than a bolt action .308 (or other large caliber) rifle. Basically, the same reasons as why the military went from the 03 to Garand to M14 and ended up at the M16(M4).

But the best reason is quite simply, regardless of the reason, BECAUSE I WANT TO. Same reason I have a car that will go 130 mph. Don't need it. Don't get to go that fast very often. But when I want to, I can.

 

[johnwill]

The Rem 700 and the AR are two totally different guns, and they're suited to totally different roles. If you have to explain the difference between a bolt gun and a semi-auto, I'm not sure you'll ever get to the point where this person would really understand!

Put a different way, if I were one of the shop owners during the LA riots, I'd have been a lot happier with an AR than the Rem 700 while I was standing on my rooftop!

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

An analogy that sometimes work for me is comparing it to a manual and automatic transmission in a car.

With the Remington 700, I have to work the bolt myself, using muscle power to load the next round.

With the AR15, it uses the gas from the last fired road to load and chamber the next round.

It doesn't explain all the intricacies of gun design and different rifles for different roles; but I find most antis tune out if you go into "gunspeak" on them. This gives a much simpler analogy that they can relate to better.

First get her to accept the self-loading feature of rifles as a modern convenience. If you can do that, you can demolish opposition to black rifles pretty quickly.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Your anti friend is ignorant. No insult intended. It is just that she does not comprehend the fact that the "style" of the gun really isn't an issue, whether it be military or conventional styled.

The REM 700 is a bolt action rifle. The AR is a semi-auto. So, they function quite differently. However, there is a nearly endless supply of tradtional non-bolt action semi-auto guns that don't have that military style to them that are just as or more lethal than an AR.

By the way, as I recall the REM 700 or a variation of it has been used by the military in sniping or sniper training. So it is a military gun.

Come to think of it, nearly all guns are military guns, have been used in the military, or have counterparts in the military from shotguns to single action revolvers to single shot rifles, semi-auto rifles and handguns, and automatic rifles and handguns.

Funny, I drive a "sports" car. Traditionally, "sports" cars are from the racing car genre. I don't race. What is even more funny is that my wife's Subaru Forester has more horsepower and is a better performance vehicle than my sports car, faster in the 1/4 mile, faster top end speed, and it corners nearly as well. If I were going to be in a chase or race, I would pick the Forester. The "style" of the gun is not a relevant issue just as it isn't relevant in relation to my sports car and my wife's SUV.

 

[4V50 Gary]

Fun.

And for smaller stature people or folks who can't handle the recoil of a .416 Rigby or just don't want a detached retina, how about less recoil and very pleasant to shoot?

I use to use my Colt H-Bar for running deer competition and it was a lot easier than a bolt action.

 

[uglygun]

2, 3, 4 guns and only one lower assembly. That's one huge advantage to the design now after the commercial/custom folks have taken to the gun, multiple chamberings. The AR15 is the Tompson Contender of the civilian semiauto market, without a doubt. Around 5 rifle chamberings and around 4-5 handgun chamberings.


Versatitlity, whether she buys that or not it's one heck of a handy rifle.


Ease of shooting, no manual manipulation of the bolt between shots.


Ability to be made into a HIGHLY accurate rifle, something most anti's or uneducated gun folks just plain don't understand.


Take the gal out shooting if she is the least bit open minded about things, every single female I've taken shooting has fallen in love with the AR15 once they find out that the thing is essentially recoiless.


Once you start selling the thing on all of it's merits the only thing she'll likely have to come back at you with is, "yeah but it's so ugly."

 

[Zundfolge]

Oleg says it best

 

[Don Martin]

With any conversation with an anti-gunner I would be very careful of what I said and I would defend the AR-15.

In conversations here however I have no respect for the M-16/AR's as rifles for any use.

Double Naught Spy,

With all due respect the Subaru Forester is one of the slowest cars one can drive! In terms of acceleration, top speed and the far more important performance features of cornering (skid pad) and stopping ability.

 

[Quakemaster]

I was looking at the handbook and our Forester has 165 hp and I know it does at least 128. That ain't bad, but it is from '99 and not one of the new ones. I believe they are 185 hp. A vintage Mustang has far less than 100 and a top speed less than 100. A '92 Celica has 105 hp and tops out at 118. The new Celica's are quicker and have something like 30 more hp.

I don't understand what is wrong with ARs. Is it that because they are tied to the military that they are somehow evil? Would it not make sense that a gun used to defend the country might also be useful for an individual's defense weapon? Why would that be bad?

 

[ballistic gelatin]

1. hollywood
2. media

 

[johnwill]

In conversations here however I have no respect for the M-16/AR's as rifles for any use.

You're obviously free not to use them for any purpose, but can you illuminate the topic just a bit, or is this just a prejudice that you have with no basis?

 

[flinch_of_gt]

You could approach it from the historical aspect, since the AR-15 has served with the U.S. military since the mid-60s. It's far easier to understand the experience of the American fighting man when you're shooting the same weapon that fought in the jungles of Southeast Asia, the deserts of Iraq, and the mountains of Afghanistan. It's an immediate, visceral link to history.

The AR-15 is one of the most versatile systems out there, since the modular design allows one to switch between a short-barrel rifle for CQB, a 16" carbine for plinking, and a 24" free-floated match target rifle.

Ammunition for the AR-15 is plentiful and inexpensive. With the right load, it is an extremely accurate target rifle. The '15 is an extremely pleasant rifle to shoot; low recoil and minimal muzzle jump. First-time shooters are always impressed by how pleasant the AR is to shoot.

If none of these arguments work, go with: "Because I like giving bliss-ninnies like you nightmares."

Aside: Who's the owner of that SBR in the pic?

 

[Badger Arms]

Modular? How? You can only change the upper receiver on the AR-15. If you consider a flat-top and 500 Weaver Rail slots to be modularity, I've got a drill, tap, and some weaver stock that can make a Colt SAA Modular!!!

Switching uppers does nothing for modularity IMO. Having two $500 barrel units for a $250 lower seems a bet strange when you can have two guns instead of one. Beyond that, from a military point of view, you cannot change feed mechanisms, stocks, trigger groups, etc. The HK G36 and Stoner 63 are among some of the much more modular weapons on the market. The Steyr Aug has a quick-change barrel.

The AR-15 was NOT reliable during the Gulf war. It was responsible many deaths and troubles during Vietnam. It is a poor design for a military weapon. The only reason we have it is because of that Bastard, McNamara jamming it down our throats. By 1963 when a better weapon arrived (the AR-18) the newly renamed M-16 had grown deep enough roots that it was impossible to replace it.

I like the AR-15 and it's an absolutely wonderful CIVILIAN and LAW ENFORCEMENT weapon. For armies and warfare, I wouldn't trust the AR-15 to do anything.

 

[Badger Arms]

Back to the subject, the AR-15 is a civilian copy of our military's primary fighting weapon. Why can't we own one?

 

[Hkmp5sd]

Badger, you related to David Hackworth? He makes that same comment about the M16 in every book he writes, including the latest, "Steel My Soldiers' Hearts." Guess he really, really, really doesn't like the M16.

 

[K80Geoff]

The AR-15/M16 is as legitimate a sporting rifle as a Remington bolt action. It is used in competition all over this country. It is used in the National matches and in DCM competitions all over the country.

It should be the duty of every potential member of the militia/military to learn how to use one properly and become competent shooting with it.

 

[edamon2k]

I don't own one, but i'd love to (CA).

My answer would be:

"cause it's freakin cool, look at it"

-d

 

[AllenTC2]

Badger

The M16 was NOT responsible for the troubles in Viet Nam. The problems were...

1) DoD went with a cartridge it was not designed for. As I recall, Eugene Stoner said "Use this powder" and DoD said "No, we'll use this one". End result, excessive fouling the rifle wasn't designed to deal with.

2) Weapon was rushed into service without proper training on maintenance, and the tools to perform the maintenance.

While I didin't use mine in actual combat (I was a mechanized infantryman), my M16A2 had no problems whatsoever in Desert Storm, nor did any of the other guys in my platoon. The only time I had problems with an M16 (of any vintage) was when firing blanks.

While not the end-all, be-all battle rifle, the M16 is no slouch either.

 

[Redsnake97]

Perhaps you could use an analogy that she would better understand...

ask her..

"Why do you need more than ONE pair of black shoes... they're all black, basically look the same so what's the point of having more than one pair?"... lol

I'm sure I'll get blasted for that but who cares. It's a free country (for the most part) and if you want to own a Remington 700 and an AR-15 then by all means it's your right.... I know I have both and love them both.

Some people just don't get it...