I do not see a link to a particular article. More generally, I refer to claims like a 9mm round is "high caliber" and will "blow a lung out" and the "devastating" damage a round from an AR15 can do. Add to that "High caliber:, "liquefy organs", "Blow the body apart" "Almost unsurvivable", and any number of other embellishments. Terms like this - almost always used w/o giving any context - are used to prey upon the emotions of the ignorant.
Cause 10mm is a pretty decent carbine caliber you might get some real use out of. And I wanna say .45 ACP was "designed for war" so I was just being cheeky mostly.
Don't you think that it makes the most sense to stick with the calibers that are most plentiful if things go sideways? An exotic firearm with no ammunition isn't worth much.
so is any other I would argue all weaponry and existence was designed for warfare one way or another. Sorry I didn't pick up on the humor
How supply and demand works is, if you buy more of a thing the manufacturer will create more of the thing to sell. Want more 10 milly? Buy more 10 milly and tell your friends to do likewise. Its really not 'exotic' dude. Its still commercially produced in large quantities and numerous current production arms from dozens of manufacturers use the round. Its not 7.7 japanese or .32 french longue or some ****.
Everything. He developed it specifically for the military. You're kidding me here right? You can supply all the references you like and it won't change the history of this specific platform, and there's not a damn thing wrong with it. You seem to be arguing your way into a bit of a facile trap, requiring proof that firearms and their component appurtenances and functions trace their history to non-military lineage to justify their service in the hands of civilians. The bayonet lug, eh? Very disrespectful to Stoner's accomplishment. That's all that was unique in the patent, just the bayonet lug? Meh, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Stoner This, I read the first time, but thanks again, it is moderately interesting Bullshit, there were several substantial innovations in the design of this platform. They are widely published and admired and I doubt the popularity of this design is due to the bayonet lug. It certainly wasn't the feature that excited me when I got my Colt LE6940, but hey, no problem man, u do u.
What are the military functions of the AR-15 that don't exist in the Remington Model 8? Grabbing a bunch of features previously used in civilian firearms and then trying to sell it to the military just tells us that he's a good copier. What are the innovations that make this a purely military design?
Eh, I'd argue .32, .38, 40 short and weak and numerous others just don't work as well. .45 and 9mm you've got a strong enough case for though. 10mm beats the pants off 9mm though. Beats .45 too if you don't want to suppress it. 10mm was purpose made for civilian law enforcement so per se not warfare Got to get them with the rules lawyering.
As I recall the only truly novel thing he did was use a particular form of anodizing and aluminum. It had previously only been used for commercial aircraft purposes. When the army adopted the rifle, they actually didn't do the particular form of anodizing at first (and changed the round somewhat by altering the powder type as I recall) and it played merry hell with the initial models issued in service.
Which one would you let someone shoot you with? Why? Civilians can't go to war? That's the purpose for all ammo or weapons in general.
What he's saying is that gas systems, smaller rounds, mag feeds, semi and full auto, etc have all been done to this point previously. Including those in your gun is not a novelty, its a use of an existing technology. Stoner was a pioneer in the MATERIALS and TECHNIQUES used to produce the existing technology and apply that materials science from aircraft to firearms. That doesn't mean the AR15 is wunderwaffe bullshit no one had ever seen before or something.
I meant in the event of total anarchy and you have to take what you can find. Would you rather have a 10mm pistol or a 9mm pistol if you have to forage for ammunition? Thanks,
If the alternative was letting them shoot me with 10mm? Any of those I listed already. But I don't LET anyone shoot me. Because 10mm has superior ballistics to both of those rounds and the only advantage .45 has is that standard .45 loads are subsonic so you have a cheaper and more reliable ammo source if you like to suppress. Civilians going to war makes them soldiers. Even a scratch company ad hoc militia when under call to arms is non-civilian company. They are soldiers in that configuration. Besides: The nuance we were joking about was 'created for war' vs 'usable in war'. The 10mm created for civilian law enforcement is not 'created for war' its created for civilian law enforcement. Its quite useful in war, as is anything that puts a hole in someone else, but it wasn't created especially for war. Unlike, for example, the 9mm PARABELLUM round. As stated: I was being cheeky pointing out that the 9mm he thinks is "regular' is a TURRRRRRRRRRRIBLEEEEEEE weapon of war, and one larger and more destructive is not.
Why would I only buy one gun? I have several so foraging is just that: I can eat all of these things and oo look I found some. If we're talking about a post "the caliber that shot 50 cent 9 times, two of those in the FACE, prior to his award winning rap and movie career" world where people buy decent calibers built for modern arms rather than century old relics, I'd probably take the 10mm. If we're talking about a world where the Fudds still rule? Its why I also keep a 9mm. Are you trying to backhandedly call me a poor or something? Rude.
He did well more than copy. And at this point in time there is simply no other multi-purpose platform comparable to the AR15. If you can't honestly acknowledge the historical development of the AR15 then you might be carrying on the debate needlessly tying one hand behind your back so to speak. As @Turtledude pointed out, Me, for my part, I've no problem admitting that it is my point-of-view that weapons developed primarily for the military have applications for civilians as well. I never stated otherwise*. Since the gist of the debate is the use of the AR15 platform for legit civilian purposes, why don't you go ahead and list the features of it that make it appropriate for civilian use? With about 60 years of service in the US military, I don't think there is really much need to defend its use among that part of our population. *I've maybe once posted an argument here possibly back in 2020 that several of the features of this platform invite consideration whether or not it is appropriate to ever have been offered for sale to civilians. Maybe twice. I'm open to the conversation. The characteristics of the Nato 5.56 round have been well known for about 50 years to the general public and no one, certainly least of all our self proclaimed gun experts here, should pretend to be unaware of the ballistics and in particular the so called terminal ballistics of a Nato 556 round. What's ridiculous is arguing that this round is especially evil because it shreds little kids more so than other ammo. So stupid. A little kid shot with any gun is simply horrid. The unspoken companion to Joe Scarborough's embrace and popularization of the evil 556 is what exactly? That it's ok to shoot a little kid with a Speer Gold Dot 9mm JHP? Actually, the AR15 has several drawbacks that make it better in civilian applications than in military applications. It's prissy for one thing. Rugged is not exactly a great description of the AR15. Doesn't like to get dirty, nope, and it especially dislikes dirt, grit, sand and by most accounts even water up in its inner sanctum. If I recall correctly it was not infrequently considered a piece of s for use in the jungles of Vietnam. Anyway, you might enjoy the wiki article on Stoner if you haven't read it yet. It's pretty cool.
This point in time has zero to do with design intent in the late 50s. Yes, the AR-15 is an extremely flexible platform. I like building them as much as I like shooting them. Aside from it being in common use for lawful purposes since the 70s? Aside from civilians owning more than the US military? The Gun Control Act of 1968 found that legitimate uses of firearms included “…hunting, trapshooting, target shooting, personal protection, or any other lawful activity”. Common legal uses for AR-15s and similar firearms: 1. Long distance shooting. http://thecmp.org/competitions/service-rifle/ 2. Competition - http://3gunnation.com/news 3. Practice – for long distance or competition 4. Plinking/recreational shooting – cheapest centerfire ammo, low recoil, adaptable frame. 5. Varmint hunting - https://www.americanhunter.org/articles/2013/1/10/best-ar-15-calibers-for-predator-hunting/ 6. Big game hunting, in the proper caliber and legal magazine. - http://www.fieldandstream.com/artic...r-style-rifles-chambered-for-big-game-hunting 7. Self-defense. - http://www.shootingtimes.com/ammo/ultimate-300-aac-blackout-ammo-test/ I'd like to see those points. Perhaps germane, if the AR series wasn't available in over 100 chamberings. The main problem with the M16 (no suffix) was the switch from a stick powder to a ball powder which ramped up the chamber pressure in a way not accounted for in the design. Cycling timing was affected and the extractor tried to remove the brass before the neck was able to constrict from the swelling caused by pressure during firing, ripping the brass in two and leaving a bit in the chamber. For the flaws we see it's been the US's longest serving service rifle by a lot of years. I'm familiar with Stoner, thanks.
While this doesn't address whatever that poster was talking about (?), a "regular bullet" is any bullet that makes it past quality control at the bullet factory. All the rest are "irregular bullets".
You seem intent on being squirrelly with your arguments. Why is that? If you're familiar with Stoner then you are familiar with all of the innovations that the AR15 represents, yet you actually attempted to assert that it's only militarily useful feature is its bayonet lug. Being cornered on the fact that Stoner developed the AR10 and its companion rifle, the 15, specifically for military use, you now assert that it doesn't matter anyway. One word for this style of argument: pathetic.
Because forums are anonymous, many are comfortable parading their ignorance. Ask the person if they would ban "assault bullets".
I didn't say the lug was the only useful feature, but the unique to a military firearm feature. Design difference like the gas and bolt system and the straight line buffer system don't make the AR-15 uniquely useful to the military, or even desirable. The AR-10 lost to the M-14, remember, and the operating action of the AK-47 is still used in even firearm much more modern than the M-16 family, like the Russian AK-107. If the AR-15 design was uniquely superior it would be used in more modern service rifle designs. The new XM-7 service rifle uses an older rotating bolt design first used in the Remington Model 8 in the US for a semiautomatic rifle. The more things change...
