Family of AR-15 Inventor: He Didn't Intend It for Civilians

Which has absolutely nothing to do with this weapon having the capacity for one man to wage his own personal war.

 

QUOTE=Questerr;1066304980]I need clarification. If you want be a technical pendantic (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*), there is no country in the world that use an "AK" either, but that doesn't stop people from calling AK-47 derived rifles "AK's".[/QUOTE]

Right there.

- - - Updated - - -

1) the op picture asserts that it is about hunting. It is not.
Though it is good for hunting.


This is far from that. You're being dramatic.

 

MSN couldn't even get it right. Pictured isn't the AR-15, or M-16 but Colts CAR-15, the carbine version of the AR-15/M-16 manufactured by Colt.

The libs get it wrong again, what you see is Col. Sigholtz is in possession of a CAR-15. -> http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/fa...-civilians/ar-AAh7hM9?fullscreen=true#image=2

Again the libs are using revisionist cultural-maxism history.

The United States wasn't facing any AK-47's when Stoner designed the AR-15. There was no Vietnam War when the AR-15 was designed for Air Force General Curtis LeMay when he was looking for a replacement for his airmen who were issued the M-1 carbines.

The Army and Marine Corps had already adopted the M-14 to replace the M-1 Garand during the mid 1950's. But the M-14 was just a little to powerful for airmen to handle and Curtis Lemay asked Armalite to come up with something not so powerful. The AR-15 was designed for Air Force airmen not soldiers or Marines.

Well Armalite competed against the M-14 and FN-FAL as the replacement for the M-1 Garand, it was the AR-10 chambered for the Winchester .308 aka 7.62X51. But the M-14 won the contest.

So when the Air Force was looking for a pea shooter for their airmen Stoner took the AR-10 and rechambered it for a varmint cartridge, the Remington .222 considered at the time the best varmint cartridge for shooting ground squirrels and ground hogs. It would become known as the Remington .223 aka 5.56X45.

 

Correct the M-4 is basically a cut down M-16A2. However, it still retains it's selective fire capabilities firing up to 950 rounds per minute. The AR-15 can do no where near that. It's trigger group and bolt assembly are not configured for fully automatic fire.

 

With the 03 Springfield one can reach out and touch someone over 1/2 mile away with open iron sights. But it was SOP that Marines start engaging the enemy at 900 yards away with the 03 Springfield.

In 1966 Charles Whitman shot 49 people at the University of Texas at Austin with a bolt action and pump action rifles. 17 kills and 32 wounded at distances as far as a 1/4 of a mile away. Where did Whitman learn to shoot like that ???

 

i do see a m-1 carbine there thou with 7 magazines of 30 cal

 

So it's there to satisfy your fantasies?

 

I thought you were knowledgeable about guns.

No ...you're not going t fire a revolver at a rate of 300 rounds a minute. It's MECHANICAL...not gas driven.

It also holds between 5-7 rounds...not 15-30.

And even with speed loaders it is substantially slower to reload.

Are you being dishonest or are you really that ignorant about a subject that you're so passionate about...

- - - Updated - - -

"rate of fire' has nothing to do with reloading. I thought you knew guns?

 

Whitman did have a M-1 carbine, don't know if he used it or not ?

All of the rifles were chambered for intermediate cartridges, 6 mm Remington, .35 cal Remington and the .30 cal carbine. The 6 mm and .35 cal being designed for killing deer.

Now if that Remington Mod.700 at the top of the photo had been chambered for either the 30-06 or Winchester .308, Whitman might have had 49 confirmed kills.

 

He was (incorrectly) referring to an AR's full auto ability...which can be achieved with any number of legal slide fire add ons.

I've seen jolly old rednecks fire at that rate in numerous videos. Twitch your finger as fast as you can against your arm. I'll bet you can do it five times while counting "one thousand one". That's a rate of 300 times a minute. That's a machine gun.

In fact Rachel Madow showed Sig advertisement put out by the company that made the particular assault weapon used by the Orlando killer touting that it fires substantially FASTER than the normal AR.

 

in the photo looks like the all 7 mags are full of 30 cal bullets thus he more likely didnt even fire it

 

Noticing the rifle slings on both of the Remington 700 and the M-1 carbine and the length they are adjusted to, Whitman was using a hasty sling while firing the rifles, may account why so many hits at such a long distance.

- - - Updated - - -

I noticed that.

 

good observation with the sling use

 

notice the one detective S&w holster turn around cross drawer?

 

Nice post. I'd like to have one in the home for self defense in an emergency situation. God forbid we'd ever need it. But it'd be nice to know it's there.

 

The M1 Garand and the Springfield 1903, hold 8 round clip for the M1 and 5 rounds for the Springfield 1903, not a 30 round magazine!




You could not kill that many people with these weapons!

 

OMG

 

A military assault rifle is a fully automatic weapon, an entire different level of force from a semi automatic.

And Obama, isn't it time we had a conversation about the fact that he is the world's biggest arms dealer and has been filling the world with military weapons his entire presidency? Hell, he even walked weapons to the Mexican Drug Cartels.

How Obama Became Earth's Largest Arms Dealer

Under Obama, there has been a dramatic acceleration of lethal weapons exports by the U.S. The Obama administration has approved more lethal weapon sales to more foreign countries than any U.S. administration since World War II.

http://ammo.com/articles/earths-largest-arms-dealer-is-obama-administration-infographic

 

How many bullets you can fire a minute is effected by reload speed. Rate of fire in theory is calculated in fantasy land where you don't run out of ammunition.

 

You guys are all wrong the ar12, 12.5, 14, 13 and 6.5 all shoot 7100 rounds per minute. The scary looking ones have "clips" that hold "rambo" level bullets.
I wish I could make this up but the leftist media is now calling the ar15 a rambo weapon.

 

Obama is laughing his ass off right now.

Terrorists kills 50 Americans and.he gets his rank and file Federal Government Bootlickers talking about " gun control " instead of Islamic terrorism

 

Let,s all be honest here the AR 15 was the basic design that with some important design modifications became the M-16. The history of the AR-15 was that it was initially adopted by the USAF as a weapon for USAF personnel who perform guard duty at SAC and ADC. bases. There was a need to replace the Thompson submachineguns and M-1 carbines being used by our USAF APES. The need was fir a fairly light rapid firing weapon that would work in various weather conditions found at USAF bases around the world. The trigger housing needed to be large enough to allowed gloves to be used and still fire the weapon accurately. The caliber of the AR15 -and the M-16 and all components excep for the variation of the select fire functionality are the same.

Therefore in some degree both those who claim that the AR 15 /M16 are the same and those who claim a fundamental difference are both wrong.

The similarities and the differences are NOT in the looks of the weapons but in the functionality which as Ibsaid is slight.

 

You mean magazines nit clips. See the post above clips are 19th century technology for feeding rounds into weapons. Actually maybe early 2000th century but still old tech.

 

And all arguments against the ban are based upon dishonesty and ignorance.

- - - Updated - - -

And all arguments against the ban are based upon dishonesty and ignorance.

I am not saying that the ban worked or not but neither gets any medals for truth in this case.

- - - Updated - - -

And all arguments against the ban are based upon dishonesty and ignorance.

I am not saying that the ban worked or not but neither gets any medals for truth in this case.

- - - Updated - - -

And all arguments against the ban are based upon dishonesty and ignorance.

I am not saying that the ban worked or not but neither gets any medals for truth in this case.

 

An awful lot of dead Nazi's, Japanese, North Koreans, and Chinese, would disagree with you. I mean they would if they were not killed by an M1.

As I have said many times in my life, its not the weapon that makes a man deadly, its the man.