Why the desire to own an AR-15 or the like?

[peggysue]

I am old and carried one during the Vietnam conflict. I never wanted one until 30 years ago then found out how easy they are to build and the fun in doing it. I have about 8 AR variety's now. Why. Because I love guns.

[BombthePeasants]

"Why the desire to own an AR-15 or the like?"

Because the Democrats don't want me to have one!!

[osbornk]

For some reason, I have never had a desire to own or even shoot them. I like and have cowboy revolvers and rifles, Dragnet era 38 special revolvers as well as rifles and shotguns I grew up with in the 60s. The only military style gun I have is a 1911.

[WVMountaineer]

AR does not stand for Assault rifle. That was a Clinton regime term. It appears to have caught n since the 90's. It stands for Armalite Rifle.

They are versatile, dependable, accurate, and just dang handy to carry and shoot. I'm on my fifth one. I love them. God Bless

[Theohazard]

Originally Posted by WVMountaineer

AR does not stand for Assault rifle. That was a Clinton regime term.

This first sentence is correct, but the second one is not. It has been mentioned time and time again in this thread and in many others: The term "assault rifle" is a valid technical term coined by the Germans in WWII. You're confusing it with the term "assault weapon", which is the made-up political term invented in the 80s or 90s by anti-gun groups. It seems like people confuse these two terms every single time this subject comes up.

Originally Posted by WVMountaineer

It stands for Armalite Rifle.

No, it simply stands for the first two letters in "ArmaLite". ArmaLite used the "AR-" prefix for more than just rifles. For example, the AR-9 and AR-17 were shotguns, the AR-13 was an anti-aircraft machine gun, the AR-24 was a pistol, and the AR-22 and AR-23 were training adapters for the Mk19 40mm grenade launcher.

[pathdoc]

I wish you guys would stop dissembling. These things are clearly (semiauto) assault rifles. Yes, I think you have the right to own them. The more you try to slide away to some other definition to maintain right of ownership in the eyes of an unreasonable authority, the harder things are going to get for you.

Remember that in MILITARY service, both the British and the Australians had their FN FAL and SLR - same rifle, different name) set to semiauto only; the automaticity of it makes no difference. Fight for your rights. Don't give an inch. The colonists had military grade firearms in 1776; you deserve military grade firearms now (with everything which this implies). End of story. Tell the objectors where to go and what to do to themselves.

I wouldn't own one because my ammo consumption would be fearful (even with Canadian limits on mag capacity) and the upkeep of the gas system, finicky-ness of the handloading etc. is more than I'm ready to handle right now.

[Screwball]

Originally Posted by pathdoc

I wish you guys would stop dissembling. These things are clearly (semiauto) assault rifles.

Well, just because some countries saw that a .308 was difficult to control on full auto, the term "assault rifle" was changed to include semi auto rifles? Sorry, but I'll completely disagree with that... and I don't agree a .308 is an intermediate rifle cartridge. The .30-06 isn't, and the .308 is damn near identical in performance... especially when you are comparing the two rounds to 5.56mm.

Such rifles (FAL, G3, M14) are battle rifles. The assault rifle term wasn't applied to the FG42, as that shot 8mm Mauser at either semi or full auto. The 8mm Kurz in the StG44 is what was ultimately accepted as an assault rifle.

If the rifle doesn't shoot an intermediate cartridge (5.56mm, 7.62x39mm, etc) and have full auto capability... it isn't an assault rifle.

[ttarp]

These things are clearly (semiauto) assault rifles.

You know I'm going to agree with this, even though the .308 "battle rifle" given as an example is in a different category.

Arguing the difference of "assault weapon" and "assault rifle" has always seemed like a flawed argument. They are what they are, semi auto versions of military rifles, just as effective in most cases without the happy switch as with.

[raimius]

The US Army definition of an "assault rifle" includes an intermediate cartridge and select-fire capability. The FAL does not meet that, as it uses a full power cartridge, non-NFA AR-15s do not meet it due to being semi-auto only. Don't argue with established definitions. They are what they are. Feel free to think they should be different, but don't argue a factually incorrect point.

[WVMountaineer]

This first sentence is correct, but the second one is not. It has been mentioned time and time again in this thread and in many others: The term "assault rifle" is a valid technical term coined by the Germans in WWII. You're confusing it with the term "assault weapon", which is the made-up political term invented in the 80s or 90s by anti-gun groups. It seems like people confuse these two terms every single time this subject comes up.

You might be right on the history of where it originated. I'm only in my forties. So, my history said it was the Clinton regime that really brought it to the fore front. Either way, it is a term used currently to improperly label a sporting, civilian rifle as a weapon used in combat.

No, it simply stands for the first two letters in "ArmaLite". ArmaLite used the "AR-" prefix for more than just rifles. For example, the AR-9 and AR-17 were shotguns, the AR-13 was an anti-aircraft machine gun, the AR-24 was a pistol, and the AR-22 and AR-23 were training adapters for the Mk19 40mm grenade

Thanks for the clarification.

God Bless

[rickyrick]

To the general public: anything with a magazine protruding from the gun is an assault something. Even more so if it has at least one grip.

Put a light on it and something weird looking on the end of barrel... You've gone full on military grade

[44 AMP]

The term "assault rifle" is a valid technical term coined by the Germans in WWII.

Here's a bit of the history of that (very condensed).
In/around 1940, Hitler ordered development work on new rifles to be suspended. They were winning the war just fine with the Kar98k, and HE felt working on developing a new rifle that they did not need was a waste of resources.

However, further research and development of SMGs was not suspended. A newer, better submachine gun was a desirable thing.

Certain engineers were developing the intermediate class round and a rifle for it. They continued to develop them, despite Hitler's order. They called it a Maschinen Pistole (MP), the German term for a submachine gun, in order to get around the "no new rifle development" order.

Small numbers were field tested on the Russian front, and very well received.

(later) At a conference between Hitler and officers serving on the Eastern Front, Hitler asked what they wanted, and was told "more of the new rifles!"

WHAT NEW RIFLES????!!!!

Hitler was furious that his earlier order had been flouted. However, after he was shown a demonstration of the "new rifles" (MP43 & MP 44) he became enthusiastic, and ordered full production of the new gun which he then named,
Sturmgewehr. And so the MP44 became the Stg44 and became history.

Sturmgewehr is most commonly translated into English as "Assault Rifle". It could also correctly be translated as "Storm Rifle", but seldom is.

The primary defining features of the assault rifle were taken from the Stg44 which are #1 select fire capability, and #2 intermediate power cartridge.

Other features, such as a straight line stock, box magazine fed, protruding pistol grip etc are common features to many assault rifle designs but they are NOT the DEFINING features.

The term "assault rifle" has been in use by the firearms community and the military since Hitler coined it. Do note, however, that our military never used that term for any of our weapons, and the gun community was fairly lax and informal about the term, UNTIL the anti gunners made it the focus of their efforts.

I DO agree that arguing over the correct use of terms is not the strongest RKBA argument. It is, however, still a valid argument, primarily because when you can prove the other side A) either doesn't actually know what they are talking about, of B) are deliberately lying, it shows the uncommitted observers the weakness of their position, and demands.

[danco]

AR does not stand for Assault rifle. That was a Clinton regime term.

The Clinton-regime term was "assault weapon," but that term was first coined by the forces of darkness in California with the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989.

It's only more recently that the anti-gun crowd (and the news media) seem to have given-up on calling semi-automatic rifles "assault weapons" and have moved on to calling everything "assault rifles."

And don't, for a minute, think the change in nomenclature isn't intentional...

[surg_res]

44 AMP correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Kalashnikov get his hands on some MP44s and use the design as the foundation for his projects?

Regarding the original post, I'd ask an additional question which is how many first time gun-owners buy AR type rifles as their FIRST firearm?. I find that idea very frightening. As comfortable as I am with firearms, I find myself very uneasy when obviously novice shooters start poking around the range, trying out their new black guns. Well, at least they now come in pink.

[rickyrick]

^^^^ and that's how the second amendment dies^^^

[Reloadron]

Surg_Res mentions:

Regarding the original post, I'd ask an additional question which is how many first time gun-owners buy AR type rifles as their FIRST firearm?. I find that idea very frightening. As comfortable as I am with firearms, I find myself very uneasy when obviously novice shooters start poking around the range, trying out their new black guns. Well, at least they now come in pink.

During the 90s my wife and I owned a gun shop. The poor man's AR was the MAK-90 AK-47 semi automatic clones were pouring into the country. While plenty bought them as a first rifle and also the AR variants (there were few making the AR rifles then) seldom did they manage to shoot each other on the range. Even today if we look at accidental shootings, I don't see the AR popping up. You know the media would have a ball with it but it just isn't happening.

When I have seen some reckless and dare I say stupid people on the public ranges they have not yet managed to shoot each other. I am not saying you are wrong, just saying there is nothing to back the statement up.

Ron

[benEzra]

Regarding the original post, I'd ask an additional question which is how many first time gun-owners buy AR type rifles as their FIRST firearm?. I find that idea very frightening. As comfortable as I am with firearms, I find myself very uneasy when obviously novice shooters start poking around the range, trying out their new black guns. Well, at least they now come in pink.

Why wouldn't a centerfire .22 rifle be a good first firearm, compared to (say) a 9mm pistol, a .308, or a 12-gauge?

.223 AR's are excellent rifles for those who are new to shooting, because they are light-recoiling (thanks to the low-powered cartridge), reliable, easy to maintain, and very accurate. And if you only own one long gun, it's nice to have one that can serve in both the paper-target-shooting role and the HD role.

FWIW, my first gun was a .223 semiauto, except it was a Ruger Mini-14 Ranch Rifle. Exactly the same as an AR-15 in caliber and function, but with a straight wooden stock instead of ergonomic composite furniture. I think I was much better served with that than if I had gotten a shotgun as my first firearm.

[turtlehead]

My first rifle was an AR I built for myself.

Because America.

[raimius]

Surg res, why does that scare you?

Personally, I'd rather have a new shooter one lane over have a rifle than something like a 357 J-frame! (I can see poor muzzle control much easier that way!)

[44 AMP]

but didn't Kalashnikov get his hands on some MP44s and use the design as the foundation for his projects?

As far as I know, in every interview Kalashnikov ever gave, when/if asked, he always swore he NEVER saw any of the Sturmgewehrs before designing the AK-47.

Now to varying degrees, form follows function, but they do look an awful lot alike, nicht Wahr?

As to people buying an AR as their "first rifle", its a poor idea, because the cost of the gun and ammo means the learning curve is more expensive than need be. Doesn't mean they are any less safe than they would be with any other rifle, though.

Back in my day, NOBODY I ever met (or heard of) got any centerfire as their "first" rifle. Was always a .22LR. A centerfire might have been the first rifle they owned, or bought for themselves, but virtually every shooter had .22 experience before going to a centerfire.

Sign of the times, I guess...

[SR420]

surg_res

Regarding the original post, I'd ask an additional question which is how many first time gun-owners buy AR type rifles as their FIRST firearm?

I purchased my FIRST gun in the late 70's, it was a Bushmaster Arm Pistol.

[Ignition Override]

Finally bought the first AR clone, the S&W M&P Sport II. It appears to be a very high quality gun.

It's nice to have a semi-auto sport utility rifle--unlike my various SKS and AK clones--which came "nib" with the aperture sight, nice trigger, and less muzzle rise than any of the 7.62x39 guns I've owned.
And the stock post sight can be changed for a thinner front post, among so many other features.

[Ibmikey]

A comment was made about the "finicky--ness." Of reloading and "the gas system". I load thousands of .223 and many .300 blackout using a single stage press with very few cases culled for split necks or rupturing, but "finicky" in reloading this ammo just does not apply. I use consistant charges depending upon bullet weight and crank them out one fifty round loading block after another. This ain't rocket science and actually quite easy.
Who cleans the gas system? Do not know what his problem is with the gas system, I do clean the bolt and carrier and run wet but I am sure the rifle would run a long time without maintenance of the carrier and a bit of lube applied every now and again.

[surg_res]

^^^^ and that's how the second amendment dies^^^

Really Ricky? If the second amendment dies, its because we gun owners fail to convince the voting majority of people that ownership of such weapons is a right created long long ago by our forefathers to keep power in the hands of people. And just as other rights have come and gone, so too will this one if we aren't careful and don't pay attention to the details.

I'm disturbed by the general market trend in automatic rifle ownership. The reason I'm disturbed is that so many people aren't arming for defense against burglary, as they are preparing for what is perceived as the impending death of social order. Some have no shooting skills and very limited access to gun ranges. When I grew up, weapons were treated with more respect, and shooters practiced more discipline. We live in an undisciplined culture, and such powerful weapons have become, in my opinion, less than an asset in the hands of inexperienced shooters.

[turtlehead]

So is there something you would like to propose, surg?