Civilian sporting rifles like the AR-15's help to keep the cost down on manufacturing rifles for the U.S. military. They also keep the arms industries open in America so they can quickly produce weapons for the U.S. military without relying on foreign countries. Same is true with ammunition purchased by civilians. Without civilians purchasing ammunition, America's ammunition manufacturers would go out of business and America would become dependent on foreign countries for ammunition for the U.S. military. There are more AR's out there in the civilian world than the U.S. military has.
Why does it matter? What ultimate, meaningful difference does the name of any particular firearm actually make?
Eugene Stoner lost any say over the AR-15 once the rights were sold off to another company, which was free to do whatever it pleased with the design. It used the designs to produce a rifle that would meet military standards, the M16, and a rifle that did not meet military standards, the AR-15. Despite their appearance, their internals are vastly difference, and simply not interchangeable with one another without significant machining work. Metal was actually removed from the internals of the AR-15 that is present on the M16, meaning one would have to fabricate components from scratch to convert it.
I would think that the phrase "weapon of war" would mean a weapon that has been used in war, or has been used to equip a military for the possibility of war. Since, to my knowledge, neither of those has ever happened anywhere in the world, then no, the AR15 is not a "weapon of war".
There are several iquestions If it was supposed to be a different rifle, why keep the same name? Were the modifications to the armalite product made in order to make it a more desirable as a sporting rifle... or simply to evade regulations? If i bought a colt ar15, would it be possible to find aftermarket parts to customize the rifle to be functionally similar to the m16 If the ar15 and the m16 were both available to sport shooters and cost the same.... which would sport shooters buy? What is the compelling sport shooting advantage of the ar15 over the m16?
Yes It would be more accurate to say that colt produced a military model, and a model that slightly modified to evade regulations and so could be sold to civilians. They made no improvement to the civilian model. Yes, and people do this.... never mind the bump stock customization Interestingly, in other discussions of the ar15, a proud point that enthusiasts make is that it is pointless to remove the select fire feature since A person with a rapid trigger finger can achieve functionally the same result by pulling the trigger rapidly.... which proves my point that the rife designed as a military rifle maintains most of the military functionally of its original military design
Why does it matter what nomenclature a particular firearm is ultimately known by? Why does it matter if the united states military applied its own nomenclature to the finished product it was supplied with? There is no evading of regulations to be had in this matter. Except for the fact that such would not be the case, as the fire control group components that would actually achieve such a goal are regulated by the ATF in the same manner as fully-automatic firearms. Greater degrees of customization. The AR-15 is available in calibers the M16 is not, including .450 Bushmaster, .50 Beowulf, .458 SOCOM, and several other significant calibers that will down most large game.
Thus demonstrating why the restrictions on fully-automatic firearms serve no legitimate purpose in existing, as they exist solely to assist the united states federal government in matters of taxation rather than anything relating to public safety.
It matters because the clear intention was to create a rifle that was clearly as close as allowable to a military product People who chose to evade laws will devise ways to evade laws They are regulated... but there are always people willing to evade regulations.... i can buty illegal drugs on the dark web, and probably also products to modify ar15 Too funny The people who make these weapons brag how their semi auto rifle can bring down the largest game with a single shot... as if people could not do this before without having semi auto functionality? . Deer in close cover are easily taken with solid hits guaranteeing one shot kills and little or no tracking Then they get to the high purpose of such rifles , the .50 Beowulf® has found wide acceptance with military and law enforcement agencies. The external ballistics of the .50 Beowulf® cartridge are well-suited to urban environments where the shorter range template allows for more flexible application and the large projectile energy delivered by the ammunition can disable both motor vehicles and assailants with body armor. Windscreen glass does not affect the trajectory of the bullet, nor do automotive body panels. . . What is there about this rifle that would make it unsuitable for a mass killing or doing battle with the police
There we have it, folks. the issue is not whether or not this rifle is designed for military/warfare usage.... you just do not think any regulation of weapons is effective or appropriate... regardless of whether or not it is designed as a weapon of war
Yeah, strange. The military uses guns with bolt carrier groups, trigger groups, receivers and barrels. Who knew?
If that were the case Colt would have simply sold M16s on the civilian market. Fact is, the US military issues the M16/M4 and not the AR15 because the AR15 is not a weapon of war.
Again, why does it matter what name a particular firearm is known by? Why is the name of any importance? Except for the fact that producing a firearm for sale on the private market requires complying with the law, not evading it. And engaging in such activity would result in a felony offense that would be quite easy to prosecute. Pray tell, exactly what is the issue on the part of yourself? That it is actually possible for someone to simply break the law, as there is no way to prevent a physical action from occurring? Do you want new laws to try and stop people from breaking the laws that already exist? Exactly what nonsense is being presented on the part of yourself this time? What is the source of the citation being presented on the part of yourself? With regard to the .50 Beowulf cartridge itself? The simple fact that magazine capacity is drastically reduced due to the wider casing taking up more room. A thirty-round magazine for the AR-15 can only hold ten rounds of .50 Beowulf ammunition.
The only regulations on fully-automatic firearms is their being registered with the united states federal government, and the individual who wishes to purchase one, besides passing a background check, must pay a transfer fee of two hundred dollars. It is for this transfer fee, a tax, that these firearms are subject to such regulations. It has absolutely nothing to do with matters of public safety, as at present there is absolutely nothing preventing the legal owner of a fully-automatic firearm from using it for the purpose of committing a mass shooting.
Minus the only thing that matters, full auto. . What would make it more suitable than any other non fully auto?
Full auto is a useless function and a waste of ammunition. That's why you learn in the military to do controlled burst of 3 to 5 shots, so you can hit anything. Even with a machinegun the shorter your burst the more effective you are and by the way do not ruin your weapon.
Nice spin!!! They didn't skirt regulations, they designed, and produced a rifle within the established legal regulations...
Look, we all know how these things work. If you have powerful lobbyists and money, you arrange for industry friendly regulation which you probably write yourself with the intention that these regulations can be easily met without damaging your bottom line Fundamentally, the question if this thread was whether the ar15 is a weapon of war. I have proved that it was designed to be that. colt devised a civilian version to meet regulations they helped write, and which we have agreed have a trivial impact on the design of the weapon and which changes have in no way made the rife better suited for sport and have only the impact of meeting the industry friendly regulations so that people like you can maintain the charade that it is not a weapon of war
The predominant use of the m16 is as a semi auto. The AR15 is semi auto. So yes, the AR15 is a weapon of war. Obviously the full auto select is a limited but absolutely necessary occasional use function, but the m16 is a semi auto function rifle first, just like the AR15. Just the simple fact that this platform was put in use during the Vietnam war and is still in use today, tells anyone how effective it is as a military weapon.
For classification purposes, auto 3 shot burst are still considered full auto and are the regulated function, regardless of the rational of changing the m16 to 3 shot burst by the military.i IMO, the popularity of the AR15 stems from the same basic premise that the m16 was developed for, easy to train on by draftees who had to be thrown into war asap. Literally, anyone can shoot these weapons effectively with much less training then earlier combat rifles.
