The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > General Discussion Forum

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old June 17, 2016, 11:14 PM   #26
Quentin2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 18, 2009
Location: NorthWest USA
Posts: 1,996
If what they say about the AR-15 is the truth then I wonder how Eugene Stoner's children and grandchildren would explain his state of mind in the early 1990s when he revived his old 1950s AR-10 project while working at Knight's Armament on the SR-25 (Stoner Rifle AR-10 + AR-15). A lot of SR-25s were sold to civilians and surely he knew that would happen just like all the AR-15 civilian sales from the mid-1960s, thirty years before the SR-25.

Nah, it doesn't add up. I don't believe a word of that NBC concocted story.
Quentin2 is offline  
Old June 17, 2016, 11:29 PM   #27
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 24,931
  • The Mauser bolt action 1898 was designed for military use.
  • The 9mm round was designed for military use.
  • The 1911 was designed for military use.
  • The .45ACP round was designed for military use.
  • The Glock pistol was designed for military use.
  • Moonclips for revolvers were designed for military use.
  • The 30.06 round was designed for military use.
So what.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old June 18, 2016, 12:33 AM   #28
Pond, James Pond
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 12, 2011
Location: Top of the Baltic stack
Posts: 6,079
Quote:
Nah, it doesn't add up. I don't believe a word of that NBC concocted story.
But everyone else will. Doesn't really matter if it's true or not. Nor does it matter if the family decided to make this statement alone or with a little help.

It only matters if you can get that story out without looking cynical or petty in light of the recent tragedies...
__________________
When the right to effective self-defence is denied, that right to self-defence which remains is essentially symbolic.
Freedom: Please enjoy responsibly.
Pond, James Pond is offline  
Old June 18, 2016, 03:49 PM   #29
Carne Frio
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 28, 2008
Location: Near Fairbanks Alaska
Posts: 829
Well, they are just a bunch of Stoners, after all.
Carne Frio is offline  
Old June 18, 2016, 04:57 PM   #30
kilimanjaro
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 23, 2009
Posts: 3,963
Damn hippies!

That explains their memory loss.
kilimanjaro is offline  
Old June 18, 2016, 07:41 PM   #31
amd6547
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 27, 2006
Posts: 2,313
When Stoner was designing the AR series, one could order a dewat machine gun, or a Lahti 20mm AT rifle to your door. Gun mags were full of ads for Garands, FN49's...to be shipped to you at your convenience.
I doubt he would have a problem with it
The AR, in fact, is a testament to civilian firearms ownership, designed and tested by a private citizen.
__________________
The past is gone...the future may never happen.
Be Here Now.
amd6547 is offline  
Old June 19, 2016, 04:29 PM   #32
AFMISSILIER
Junior Member
 
Join Date: June 19, 2016
Posts: 1
Basic Confusion About The AR15 and the M16.

I find that people throw around the words "assault rifle" as though they know what an assault rife really means. First of all AR stands for "Armalite Rifle". The AR-15 is a "semi-automatic" rifle. Less powerful than many other semi-automatic rifles in more powerful calibers. The M-16 is a "Military" rifle that can be fired as a semi-automatic(one round down range with each pull of the trigger), Burst(three rounds down range with each pull of the trigger), and Full Auto(one round down range with each cycle as long as the trigger is held until the shooter releases the trigger, or the rifle runs out of ammo). The rifle used at the Pulse that night was a semi-automatic period. He could have chosen a .30 caliber or any number of rifles loaded with a higher caliber ammunition. In short, the AR-15 is a semi-automatic rifle that "looks like" the M-16.
The AR-15 is popular because it is designed for attachments and accessories. The owner can configure his rifle with any type of scope or open sites. It is relatively simple to clean and maintain. All of this means the owner does not have to have the gun modified by a gunsmith in order to mount a specific scope or accessory. In fact, the owner can easily change from one scope to another in just a few minutes. The gun's receiver cannot be modified to a "full auto" rifle. There are existing laws concerning the ownership of full automatic rifles( referred to as "machine guns" or "assault rifles") Look back over the history of the AR-15 and you will find that it has followed the evolution of military rifles while remaining a semi-automatic rifle.
The general public has swallowed the propaganda of the gun-control advocates and the media. I've been shooting for over 62 years. I served in the military and fired different versions of the M-16 in all three firing settings.
The "full auto" position is referred to as the "spray and pray" position. It chews up clips very quickly and hits fewer targets. The "Burst" position is the "standard" with a three round burst. Easier to stay on target and a more disciplined method. I've, also, fired the AR-15 many times in its evolution. Its familiar semi-automatic action is comfortable and a known quantity. I don't own an AR. I use a .30-06 for hunting because of the distances that I have to shoot to bring down deer and elk.
I apologize to those that know the difference between the civilian AR and the military M-16.
AFMISSILIER is offline  
Old June 19, 2016, 05:25 PM   #33
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,677
Basic Confusion About The AR15 and the M16.

Welcome to TFL, AFMISSILER!

we've covered the proper definitions many, many times, but no one seem to be listening but us, and sometimes not all of "us".

To be precise, the M16 doesn't have the burst feature. Rifles in the M16 series do (A2) but the M16 and M16A1 do not. Select fire, safe, semi and full auto in those models.

Quote:
The gun's receiver cannot be modified to a "full auto" rifle.
no, sorry, this is not true. ANY semi auto can be modified, by a skilled smith and the right machine tools. However, the AR lower has been changed a bit over the years to make it a more difficult operation requiring skill and machine tools.

Quote:
There are existing laws concerning the ownership of full automatic rifles( referred to as "machine guns" or "assault rifles")
Since 1934 full auto firearms have been heavily regulated and taxed. If it shoots full auto, it is a "machine gun" under the law. The law does not use the term "Assault Rifle". Assault rifle is a valid term, in use for many years (since the mid 1940s) but it is not the term used in the federal law.

Assault Weapon is a term used in the 1994 AWB (and in some states's laws) and refers ONLY to SEMIAUTOMATIC arms with a certain combination of stated features. As a legal term, assault weapon does NOT apply to machine guns or Assault RIFLES (which are selective fire).

Quote:
The general public has swallowed the propaganda of the gun-control advocates and the media.
Abso-freakin-lutely!

They DON'T know what they are talking about, and are only repeating incorrect terms and usages the way they hear them in the media. They THINK they know what those terms mean, but by the way they use them, they don't.


And the Media and gun banners have a vested interest in NOT explaining the truth.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old June 19, 2016, 06:00 PM   #34
rickyrick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Posts: 8,235
The widespread response across the country has been phrases like these:
"No one is going to take your precious guns"
"No one wants to keep law abiding citizens from owning guns"
"You can keep your toys"
"Gun ownership has increased under President __________"
And so on. I believe they do want to take away guns, but it really isn't so easy.

But we keep hearing pundits and politicians say:
"Weapons of war"
"Civilians don't need those"
"Reinstate the AWB"
"Prohibit all semi autos"
"The NRA is responsible for the terrorist attacks"
"The NRA blocks our legislation "

So yes, they do want to take them, just haven't figured out how yet... They'll continue to chip away at the public opinion until they can.
They have a significant portion of the population ready to sidestep due process to get things done. So, it's just a waiting game until gun rights disappear.
rickyrick is offline  
Old June 19, 2016, 07:01 PM   #35
Kevin Rohrer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 19, 2010
Location: Medina, Ohio
Posts: 1,049
But in the general sense, Stoner did not design any of his weapons for civilian use until the 1990s. They were all designed for the military because back then, civilian weapons didn't look like the AR.

And yes, I imagine anyone who designed a weapon that was subsequently used in crimes would be sickened.
__________________
Member: Orange Gunsite Family, NRA--Life, ARTCA, and American Legion.

Caveat Emptor: Cavery Grips/AmericanGripz/Prestige Grips/Stealth Grips from Clayton, NC. He is a scammer

Last edited by Spats McGee; June 20, 2016 at 06:19 AM. Reason: Removing troll-calling
Kevin Rohrer is offline  
Old June 20, 2016, 09:13 AM   #36
carguychris
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 7,523
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Rohrer
[Stoner's inventions] were all designed for the military because back then, civilian weapons didn't look like the AR.
Actually, I suspect that his main impetus for designing military weaponry was that the Cold War had prompted a massive worldwide rearmament program, and Armalite wanted a piece of the pie.

Armalite was initially backed by Fairchild Aircraft in the 1950s; at the time, Fairchild's bread and butter was selling airplanes to the military (C-82 Packet, C-119 Flying Boxcar, and C-123 Provider transports).
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak
carguychris is offline  
Old June 20, 2016, 09:50 AM   #37
ATN082268
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 2, 2013
Posts: 975
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickyrick
So yes, they do want to take them, just haven't figured out how yet... They'll continue to chip away at the public opinion until they can.
They have a significant portion of the population ready to sidestep due process to get things done. So, it's just a waiting game until gun rights disappear.
Pretty much. Once the guns are largely gone, the government won't even need the support of public opinion to bypass other rights because there won't be any way to resist...
ATN082268 is offline  
Old June 20, 2016, 04:41 PM   #38
Chaz88
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 4, 2010
Posts: 1,243
A friend of mine has been a friend of the family for many years. The stories he tells me about them do not coincide with the news story statements attributed to them. He is a member on this site. I will ask him if he would like to comment on this. He might not but I will check.
__________________
Seams like once we the people give what, at the time, seams like a reasonable inch and "they" take the unreasonable mile we can only get that mile back one inch at a time.

No spelun and grammar is not my specialty. So please don't hurt my sensitive little feelings by teasing me about it.
Chaz88 is offline  
Old June 20, 2016, 09:21 PM   #39
Carne Frio
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 28, 2008
Location: Near Fairbanks Alaska
Posts: 829
The DHS folks actually recommend the AR15 for personal defense.

http://radioviceonline.com/departmen...sonal-defense/
Carne Frio is offline  
Old June 21, 2016, 12:56 AM   #40
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,677
It appears the DHS is saying the AR with a 30 rnd stick is good personal defense choice, FOR THEMSELVES, NOT for civilians.

All for me, none for thee, classic elitist motto...

Seems typical one hand of government buy them, because they are good at what they do, and the other hand of government working to BAN them, because they are good at what they do....

and, of course, the ban only applying to people who don't work for the government...
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old June 21, 2016, 12:32 PM   #41
TimSr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 8, 2013
Location: Rittman, Ohio
Posts: 2,074
When you look through history, it is hard to find any firearms concepts that were NOT first designed as "weapons of war".
TimSr is offline  
Old June 21, 2016, 06:58 PM   #42
HiBC
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 13, 2006
Posts: 8,274
I recently listened to a radio news report about Remington and Bushmaster and the lawsuit they are fighting.Something about providing civilians with a weapon of war.

Remarkable how the language of the Stoner family coincides with the language of the plaintiff's case against Remington.

Might be an pre-emptive statement to protect Mr Stoner's legacy.

I don't like the politics of the Stoner statement,but is Bushmaster/Remington lose,where does it stop?

And,yes,early 60's there was an AR-15 in our house with a SN < 4000.
The Air Force was evaluating the rifle.It was not a US military rifle yet.

IIRC,it was Colt who introduced the AR-15 to us.

Seems like airplanes were weapons of war from the get go.

Didn't the Lear jet have its roots in a military plane?

Seems like the drive behind penicillin was battle related.

The only force I know of that compares with the military for driving advances in technology is NASA...and that certainly is a military platform.

Last edited by HiBC; June 21, 2016 at 07:08 PM.
HiBC is offline  
Old June 22, 2016, 09:40 AM   #43
carguychris
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 7,523
Quote:
Originally Posted by HiBC
Didn't the Lear jet have its roots in a military plane?
Yes, a stillborn Swiss fighter-bomber, the FFA P-16. The military project was canned basically because the Swiss gov't realized that they couldn't commit adequate resources to bring the airplane into service before it would be obsolete. IIRC Bill Lear bought the engineering drawings at fire-sale prices but the only part that was used in the Learjet 23/24/25 without substantial changes was the basic internal wing structure.
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak

Last edited by carguychris; June 22, 2016 at 09:44 AM. Reason: reword
carguychris is offline  
Old June 22, 2016, 02:51 PM   #44
SIGSHR
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 13, 2005
Posts: 4,700
I doubt if John Garand "intended" his rifle for civilians.
SIGSHR is offline  
Old June 22, 2016, 10:41 PM   #45
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,677
The list of new inventions and improvements in existing designs due to the pressure of war is probably greater than the list of the same done in complete peace time.

The invention of the microwave oven was due to military research. Modern computers, as well. The list of things is HUGE. And really, it matters little for what purpose an inventor /designer does something, what matters is what the WORLD does with his invention(s).
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old June 24, 2016, 11:11 AM   #46
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,434
John M. Browning didn't design the M1911 for civilians, either. The U.S. Ordnance Department put out specifications, and Colt hired John Browning to design a handgun that met those specifications and did so better than the competition. The fact that Browning (and Colt) didn't "intend" it for civilians didn't stop Colt from almost immediately offering commercial versions on the civilian market.

With respect to Mr. Stoner's descendants, what they say, think or believe today is entirely irrelevant to the gun control debate. The civilian, semi-automatic AR-15 is not a select-fire military weapon, and that's what the gun grabbers persist in trying to sell to the American populace.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old June 24, 2016, 03:45 PM   #47
2ndsojourn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 15, 2013
Location: South Jersey
Posts: 1,416
^^^
"American populace." AKA: Kool Aid chugging uninformed.


I guess my 1860's Spencer rifle should be banned as a weapon of war. The same with my Yugo capture K98 Mauser, 1903 Springfield, FN Hi Power, Remington Rand 1911 (surplus purchase by my dad back in the '60s), Sistema Colt 1911, Radom 9mm and probably a few others.
2ndsojourn is offline  
Old June 24, 2016, 07:34 PM   #48
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,434
Quote:
In all, an AR-15 style rifle has been used in at least 10 recent mass shootings – including at an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut, a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, and a work party in San Bernardino, California.
I'd like to know where they came up with ten -- and what they use as a definition of "recent." Looking at their chart I've been compiling, I had to go back to 2007 to get beyond five -- and they weren't all "AR-15 style" so-called assault weapons.

2016 - Orlando, FL - Pulse Club
2015 - San Bernardino, CA
2012 - Sandy Hook, CT - Sandy Hook Elementary School
2012 - Aurora Theater
2007 - New Life Church, CO
2007 - West Roads Mall, Nebraska
2000 - Edgewater Technology, MA

Those are the only ones I have found in which so-called "assault weapons" of all types (not just AR-15s) were used. That's only seven incidents, not ten, and I don't consider events that occurred ten to fifteen years ago as "recent."

What "recent" mass shootings involving assault weapons have I overlooked?

Last edited by Aguila Blanca; June 24, 2016 at 11:25 PM. Reason: typo
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old June 24, 2016, 10:34 PM   #49
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,677
I can't begin to tell you what one's you've overlooked, but I think I can tell you what you HAVE overlooked.

Mass Shooting

The FBI is (as I understand it) is currently defining a mass murder as 4 or more dead.

The media now seems to be defining "mass shooting" as 4 or more WOUNDED. While reporting on the number killed, to make it a mass SHOOTING only requires 4 or more people wounded, not killed.

Using THEIR definition, I suspect you could find 10 recent mass shootings where the AR class rifle was used. You might even be able to use some police shootings as well. Their side certainly has in the past.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old June 24, 2016, 10:53 PM   #50
Kennydale
Member
 
Join Date: April 16, 2013
Location: Richmond/Rosenberg, TX
Posts: 50
I've read that that thought was a made up lie or misquote.
Kennydale is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:50 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.07727 seconds with 8 queries