I was never a big fan of the M-16A1 or any AR. The AR juses a gas tube that blows a lot of crappy gases back into the trigger housing group and action when cycling the action. Where as the M-1 Garand, M-14, Mini-14, AK-47 uses a gas piston to cycle the action. But the biggest two problems I had with the M-16 ... #1. Every time I pulled the trigger I was waiting for a stoppage to happen and you had to keep the freaking rifle clean when out in the bush. #2. The M-16 like most AR's are chambered for a high power varmint cartridge, the Remington .223 / 5.5.56X45mm The M-16A2 and any AR manufactured after 1980 can not fire the 55 gr. M193 cartridge because the copper jacket is very likely to separate from the lead core in flight because all AR's from 1980 and on have an additional land and groove and a 1 in 7" rifling twist while the M-1A1 and the older AR-15's and AR's have a 1 in 12" twist. The 5.56mm M193 cartridge is that politically incorrect bullet that caused those really nasty wounds and big exit wounds when it hit Charley.
You didn’t read my original post. No one equips their armies with M1s as their main battle rifle. I specifically referred to it that way and said it is not one of the best infantry rifles.
You're right about the rifling, but A2 and later rifles do not (at least consistently) have problem with M193 - I, personally, have tens of thousands of M193 rounds thru my ARs - even cheap-assed Russian ammo - w/o issue.
In my opinion, the answer to this question is purely dependent upon the goals and intentionality behind the design of the ar15 The family of the designer says Our father, Eugene Stoner, designed the AR-15 and subsequent M-16 as a military weapon to give our soldiers an advantage over the AK-47,” the Stoner family told NBC News late Wednesday. The ar15 was not designed for home defense or varmint hunting It WAS designed in the context of a military need Specifically in response to the AK47 Which is undeniably a military weapon The only question is whether the Ar15 has been sufficiently modified from its military heritage in order to validate making it available as a civilian variant
I believe you have confused the Armalite AR15 and the Colt (et al) AR15. Same name, different rifles.
That is correct. Only the M-16A1 was capable of full automatic fire whereas the M-16A2 was only capable of firing a three round burst which is the proper way of firing a full automatic rifle.
Legally, the the 3RB A2 (like all other M16/M4 variants) is a machine gun, thought technically, it is a not.
Because it was surpassed by the M-16 and don't know. Fan you imagine if we had replaced the already superior M1 with the current M-16 in WW2 how much more an advantage our troops would have had?
I would not ever use a ar15 for hunting wild boar if I was on the ground with them maybe in a tree stand. Ar10 yes. The AR15 round is not a heavy enough round d fir boar in my opinion. In when I went boar hunting in Oklahoma 6.5 was the smallest they would allow us to use. Trying to shoot a wounded pissed off boar who is charging you is not a situation I want to be in. As many here have said in you the 5.56 is not that great of round of your intentions is to kill.
Just so. The AR-10 (.308 and others) is much better for hunting and, IMHO, much better at the range. As a weapon of war, I would choose a AK variant before an AR.
I was unaware that the M193 cartridges were still available out there. One can reload to M193 specs. Post 1980 AR's with the 1in7" twist, the bullet is going down range spinning so fast that the copper jacket on the 55 gr M193 bullets have been known to separate from the lead core. One may not even notice that the copper jacket has separated until he notices two bullet holes in the target.
I bought a thousand Federal M193 rounds just before X-mas. Possibly, sure, because anything can happen, but consistently, I don't really think so.
Why do they have the same name? My conjecture is that they are based on the same rifle design... which was a military design And yes there are designs that are modified for civilian sale. Which i acknowledged never the less, the original post did not specify a distinction, and thus i responded to the original post as written. Perhaps you should contact that poster and better inform him? That said, the fact remains that the design of the gun was based upon a military necessity, and intended as civilian rifle. But if you want to quibble, it is certainly true that no military buys the colt ar15
I'm old schooled and was trained how to fight using the M-14 or M-1 Garand where you take deliberate aim during a firefight at the enemy. one shot one kill and also trained how to use the M-16 in combat where you send a large volume of fire into the "beaten zone." The say the later increases getting a kill by 50%. Well that's what the study said that was conducted by some Army Colonel after WW ll who never been in combat. In fact the study was debunked twenty or so years ago. Basically the tactics used while being armed with a M-14 or M-1 Garand are different when armed with a M-16 or AK-47. The later requires having more ammunition and a logistical support to be resupplied while in actual combat. Ammunition expenditure is huge compared when using a M-14 or other combat rifles that has a small rear sight aperture and reaching out touching someone from over 500 yards away. AMMUNITION EXPENDITURE IN MAJOR OPERATIONS A critical aspect of operational planning was to determine how much shipping space to devote for ammunition. While sufficient ammunition was essential, it was important not to cary too much aboard transports. Since ammunition was packaged in bulky containers, it took up a great deal of space. In September 1944, FMF, Pacific issued the Staff Officers' Field Manual for Amphibous Operations. This document contained an enormous amount of information. Among its data was an ammunition expenditure table on pages 39 and 40. This table laid out the CincPac unit of fire for the most common types of ammunition. For each type, a comparison of historical data from several campaigns was used to show how much ammuntion was actually expended in combat.
Armalite who first manufactured the AR-15 sold those rights to Colt during the early 1960's. Only Colt can sell an AR as a AR-15. Armalite still manufactures the AR-15 but it is sold as the M-15 because Colt now owns the name "AR-15." Armalite still owns the AR-10 and still manufactures the AR-10. https://www.armalite.com/product-category/complete-firearms/tactical/
This isn't from personal experience, but I've read that wild boar are very susceptible to hydrostatic shock, and that actually .223 is a better round for them than say .45-70 or shotgun slugs. That said, I don't think I'd shoot at a wild hog without being in a tree stand. https://www.gunsandammo.com/editorial/bringing-home-bacon-best-guns-gear-hog-hunting/249758
Because the ar15 has been specifically modified to evade restrictive laws, and since those laws do not apply to the military, there is no reason to buy the modified version But, never the less, it is an absolute fact that the ar15 was designed as a military rifle. A claim that the family if the designer has confirmed. If you have evidence to the contrary, please present that evidence
When Eugene Stoner and Armalite sold the design for the AR-15 and M16 platforms to the Colt Manufacturing Company, it relinquished all rights and say over what was done with the design from there on out. Colt marketed the AR-15 to the public as a sporting rifle from its very inception, and it has remained a sporting rifle to this very day.
Is such is a concern, there are indeed options relating to such. https://www.bushmaster.com/firearms/hunting/bushmaster-450-carbine
In other words... the military wanted the select-fire rifle rather than the semi-auto rifle. Why do you suppose -that- is? The select-fire Armalite AR15, not the semi-auto only Colt AR15. The semi-auto only Colt AR15, not the select-fire Armalite AR15, is the subject of controversy. But, you knew that.
