What's so great about AR-15's anyway?


PDA






Paladin_Hammer
March 29, 2009, 10:08 PM
I know there are plenty of AR-15 fanatics here. But no matter how much I read about accuracy, customization, light-weight, size, and range, I can't figure out what on earth the AR-15 is GOOD for.

You can't hunt with a .223/5.56x45 in most states (I'm pretty sure its still Missouri and Kansas prohibited, and everywhere else... I think Tennessee reversed it's ban but I'm not sure). Seeing as hunting would be the primary use of any rifle if you are NOT Law-Enforcement or Military, then the AR-15 is out of the question here.

I thought about target shooting. In this area AR-15's make sense, you can stand up and hit an inch group most AR-15's. But really, $800+ dollars to shoot paper all day long? Don't get me wrong, I go outside and plink with a .22lr pistol for hours on end, but when my family bought that .22 it was in the higher $100 dollar area, not $800.

So then defense? .223 or military 5.56x45 will not just punch holes in intruders, it will go straight through them under 50 yards and punch a hole in your wall, in anyone behind that wall, and if it's short ranged enough it could continue into a neighbor's house. Unless you've got a 100 yard long home, I can't figure out how it's a safe defense weapon, and any more effective than say, a Remington 870?

I was also told that many AR-15 owners use them for shooting Coyote's. But in Missouri, where I've found plenty of AR-15 owners, there isn't exactly a whole lot of distance between you and any Coyote. Most hunting land is either wooded or has enough hills on it to limit ranges under 200 yards. So then, why the 400 yard pushing .223/5.56?

Am I missing something here? Is there a sport or animal that the .223 takes down that's legal? I'm not saying their bad rifles, anyone knows that a AR-15 is more than capable of hitting a golf-ball at 100 yards, weighing a mere 5 pounds, fitting in tight spaces, or using more accessories than the rifle itself is worth. But in terms of sheer utility, what's it's niche?

If you enjoyed reading about "What's so great about AR-15's anyway?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
HGUNHNTR
March 29, 2009, 10:12 PM
Every deer I have killed with a rifle in the last 5 years has been with an AR.

The main thing the AR has going for it for me anyway is FUN. I love to take it out after pdogs, paper, and milk jugs full of water. The low recoil and adjustable stock makes it fantastic for introducing new shooters of all ages to centerfire rifles.

The AR is probably #2 only to the .22lr for introducing people to the shooting sports.

Cannonball888
March 29, 2009, 10:16 PM
The mods may thump me for this, but it's wise to use the same ammo and similar guns as your government.

PT1911
March 29, 2009, 10:16 PM
there is the cool factor, the hunting factor, customization, performance, and it can be used quite well for defense... there is a reason the military uses it... you are right that a FMJ may just punch a hole, but soft points are available as well, as with any gun.. shoot in the right spot and they will go down.

H2O MAN
March 29, 2009, 10:19 PM
What's so great about AR-15's anyway?

For one thing, many of their accessories work on my modernized M14s :neener:

RP88
March 29, 2009, 10:22 PM
You can't hunt with a .223/5.56x45 in most states (I'm pretty sure its still Missouri and Kansas prohibited, and everywhere else... I think Tennessee reversed it's ban but I'm not sure).

Varmint hunting... Also, swap out uppers nad an AR can be used to hunt deer. They do come in other calibers.

Seeing as hunting would be the primary use of any rifle if you are NOT Law-Enforcement or Military, then the AR-15 is out of the question here.

Primary use is whatever I want it to be. Varmint hunter, fun gun, zombie gun, home defense... Since when is the use of a rifle designated for the military and the Fudds only? What kind of crap is that? Sorry, but I don't see why that would matter.

I thought about target shooting. In this area AR-15's make sense, you can stand up and hit an inch group most AR-15's. But really, $800+ dollars to shoot paper all day long? Don't get me wrong, I go outside and plink with a .22lr pistol for hours on end, but when my family bought that .22 it was in the higher $100 dollar area, not $800.
.22s are fun, but for serious plinking out to 400 yards, that is when you grab an AR.

So then defense? .223 or military 5.56x45 will not just punch holes in intruders, it will go straight through them under 50 yards and punch a hole in your wall, in anyone behind that wall, and if it's short ranged enough it could continue into a neighbor's house. Unless you've got a 100 yard long home, I can't figure out how it's a safe defense weapon

It fragments, and actually penetrates less than some shotgun and pistol rounds, yet can/does cause more damage than either, or at least has the capacity to. The issue of going through a bad guy and your house and hurting someone outside is improbable. But, if that really worries you, you can grab some TAP ammo that is highly frangible and not have to worry about that.

and any more effective than say, a Remington 870?

ARs have better follow-up, and buckshot may penetrate more than a .223 would

I was also told that many AR-15 owners use them for shooting Coyote's. But in Missouri, where I've found plenty of AR-15 owners, there isn't exactly a whole lot of distance between you and any Coyote. Most hunting land is either wooded or has enough hills on it to limit ranges under 200 yards. So then, why the 400 yard pushing .223/5.56?

the fact that it has that range is a testament to its accuracy and flat trajectory. Hell, why do people use .30-06 for deer when that round can easily go out to 1000 yards? How much game have you take at that range? Just saying. People use alot of big calibers and don't shoot at deer or anything at a fraction of its maximum range.

Am I missing something here? Is there a sport or animal that the .223 takes down that's legal?

again, swap uppers and you can hunt whatever you want in most places.


I'm not saying their bad rifles, anyone knows that a AR-15 is more than capable of hitting a golf-ball at 100 yards, weighing a mere 5 pounds, fitting in tight spaces, or using more accessories than the rifle itself is worth. But in terms of sheer utility, what's it's niche?

in all your words spoken thus far, you have answered your own question. It is a lightweight carbine that can be used for any purpose, any time, anywhere, has good reliability and greater accuracy and range. It is the modern man's M1 Carbine.

X-Rap
March 29, 2009, 10:24 PM
Justifying what I want to anybody is reason enough to have it. You might as well start questioners about if the cars people drive have to much HP or go to fast, maybe the size of their boat or if they should have one at all. Maybe your house has to many sq ft. Yea somebody on a gun forum asking why somebody needs a specific type or caliber and questioning the validity of its utility is over the top IMHO.

TexasRifleman
March 29, 2009, 10:27 PM
Seeing as hunting would be the primary use of any rifle if you are NOT Law-Enforcement or Military,

That's one of the silliest things I've read in a long time, thanks for the laugh.

easyrider6042004@yahoo.ca
March 29, 2009, 10:36 PM
Having had the pleasure of "keeping" an M-16A1 and a Commando HB version for an extended period in a past life, all I can say is these are nice toys for big boys. They fulfilled a fantasy. Have never regretted selling them or even thought of buying anything similar.

223 or military 5.56x45 will not just punch holes in intruders, it will go straight through them under 50 yards and punch a hole in your wall, in anyone behind that wall, and if it's short ranged enough it could continue into a neighbor's house.

Yes that can happen if the bullet is not deflected by dense and hard material, like bone. Some friends have told me from personal experience that often, one 5.56 bullet plays pinball in the hapless target, destroying whatever soft tissue is in its path as it deflects from bone to bone, expending its energy inside the target. In which case, one can say that the 5.56 is an effective one shot man/fight stopper.

Paladin_Hammer
March 29, 2009, 10:42 PM
Every deer I have killed with a rifle in the last 5 years has been with an AR.

The main thing the AR has going for it for me anyway is FUN. I love to take it out after pdogs, paper, and milk jugs full of water. The low recoil and adjustable stock makes it fantastic for introducing new shooters of all ages to centerfire rifles.

The AR is probably #2 only to the .22lr for introducing people to the shooting sports.



Which state is it legal in? I'm not knocking on you I seriously want to know.

But at $800+ dollars, aren't their more economical alternatives to achieve the same level of fun?

Varmint hunting... Also, swap out uppers nad an AR can be used to hunt deer. They do come in other calibers.

But why spend $800+ dollars on the rifle and then spend anywhere from $500-1000 dollars on another upper receiver? I'm going off of prices I've seen at gun shows by the way, if someone is selling AR uppers for under $500 somewhere, tell me! I want to know!

It fragments, and actually penetrates less than some shotgun and pistol rounds, yet can/does cause more damage than either, or at least has the capacity to. The issue of going through a bad guy and your house and hurting someone outside is improbable. But, if that really worries you, you can grab some TAP ammo that is highly frangible and not have to worry about that.

I heard that the 5.56 had trouble fragmenting at under 100 yards. Something about it moving to fast to reliably fragment? Which is why the US Military is now using heavier 5.556 bullets in its M4s? 00 Buck didn't penetrate more than 3 walls on the Box O Truth's findings.

the fact that it has that range is a testament to its accuracy and flat trajectory. Hell, why do people use .30-06 for deer when that round can easily go out to 1000 yards? How much game have you take at that range? Just saying. People use alot of big calibers and don't shoot at deer or anything at a fraction of its maximum range.

Because the 30-06 will actually take down a deer and is legal in every state? That's why my father has one, it was cheap (the Remington he has cost $430 when he got it) and gets him a deer ever year. The .223 isn't a big caliber...

in all your words spoken thus far, you have answered your own question. It is a lightweight carbine that can be used for any purpose, any time, anywhere, has good reliability and greater accuracy and range. It is the modern man's M1 Carbine.

But it can't be used for everything, in stock form. Other than the possibility of an expensive upper change, none of that pertains to a utility rifle. It pertains to a man-stopper, not a survival/hunting rifle, and as a plinker/target rifle there are certainly cheaper rifles. If hunting is the question, it's not legal in many states. If you swap out uppers, then your paying the price of a new bolt rifle to do it! The M1 never had a ban on it for hunting, as far as I know.

That's one of the silliest things I've read in a long time, thanks for the laugh.

TELL ME WHY. DON'T JUST MOCK.

Honestly, what is this things niche? It isn't low-cost, it cannot be used for hunting medium sized game without an expensive upper receiver change. Plinking and target shooting, it certainly can but you could get the same results with a $300 dollar cheaper bolt rifle. Enough money to buy a good scope.

I still can't figure the sucker out. It certainly is cool, I'll be damned if it isn't one of the sexiest rifles out there. But cool isn't a factor in utility.

TexasRifleman
March 29, 2009, 10:43 PM
TELL ME WHY. DON'T JUST MOCK.

You are right, my apologies, sincerely.

You said that the only use for a rifle is hunting outside of the military or LE.

Clint Smith said "Handguns are used to fight your way to your rifle".

In nearly any defensive situation you can envision, a rifle is better than a handgun. That is the "niche" of the AR and similar rifles.

Somehow you have the idea that the 5.56 just bounces off the human body or something. Nothing is further from the truth.

For self defense or defense of your home there is little better suited than a rifle.

If you keep trying to force AR style rifles into a hunting niche than sure, it's not the best choice. But hunting is most certainly not the only use for a rifle.

In your quote:

So then defense? .223 or military 5.56x45 will not just punch holes in intruders, it will go straight through them under 50 yards and punch a hole in your wall, in anyone behind that wall, and if it's short ranged enough it could continue into a neighbor's house. Unless you've got a 100 yard long home, I can't figure out how it's a safe defense weapon, and any more effective than say, a Remington 870?


That's not even close to how it is, and there are certainly many ammo choices designed specifically for close in fighting with the 5.56 that do not perform as you describe. Proper ammo choice is key, nearly always more important than rifle choice.

fireman 9731
March 29, 2009, 10:46 PM
Thats a good question... I have wondered about them a lot...

I have nothing against them, I just cant justify the price, not to mention the cost to feed them.

Sure they look cool, but its seems like a steep price to pay for cool...

X-Rap
March 29, 2009, 10:49 PM
I think the answer to your quest lies in the leftwing anti gun faction that says we know what you need and it isn't that.
How dare you question what another man wants, there is to much of that going on in our society, what if it costs 2x what a bolt gun costs IVAN its our money.

Titan6
March 29, 2009, 10:51 PM
Which state is it legal in? I'm not knocking on you I seriously want to know.

Where do you want to hunt? It is legal in Texas, you want me to go through all 50?

Because the 30-06 will actually take down a deer and is legal in every state? That's why my father has one, it was cheap (the Remington he has cost $430 when he got it) and gets him a deer ever year. The .223 isn't a big caliber...

Funny, when you shoot them in the head with a .223 they tend to fall over with a big flop. Saves the meat too.....

So then defense? .223 or military 5.56x45 will not just punch holes in intruders, it will go straight through them under 50 yards and punch a hole in your wall, in anyone behind that wall, and if it's short ranged enough it could continue into a neighbor's house.

Do some learning before you post.

HGUNHNTR
March 29, 2009, 10:53 PM
Paladin Hammer:

It is legal in Nebraska, which is where I do most of my deer hunting. To be legal the round must generate 900 foot pounds of energy at 100 yards. The winchester or federal 64 gr soft point will acheive this mark. It is also legal in a host of other states but I have not had firsthand experience hunting in any of them.

To answer the second part of your question about cost:

Yesw, there are more economical ways of having "fun" or obtaining food, but this is the one I choose, because I want to, I can afford it, and it is perfectly legal.

If you don't think the .223 is enough, go for an AR in .245 .308, .300wsm, etc. again this goes back the popularity. This particular firearma can be had in a variety of configurations and calibers to meet many needs.

The cost is relative to your means. A $1000 rifle may be no problen for some, prohibitive for others. Calling someones judgement into question about whether or not it is affordable or not is rediculous. There are a lot of people out there with the means to purchase a $1000 rifle for sport/ paper punching, defense, or just to look at. My reasoning is none of anyone's business.

Coal Dragger
March 29, 2009, 10:53 PM
.223 is legal in SD for deer, antelope, turkey, and any small game.

As I recall .223 is also legal in Missouri for deer hunting too. I have used .223 on deer (mule deer) and it works just fine. In fact a 60gr Nosler Partition does a pretty fair job for me on deer and speed goats.

On your apparent lack of understanding bullet fragmentation, let me clear it up for you Paladin. The M4 has had issues getting reliable fragmentation with the M855 round at ranges beyond 100yds because the velocity is not always high enough to exert the leverage needed to fragment that particular bullet (pretty tough FMJ) to come apart in tissue. At closer ranges they fragment quite reliably as the impact velocity is higher. The newer, heavier ammo is longer and allows tissue to exert greater leverage over a longer area to fragment. The heavier 77gr ammo also has more energy, especially as distances increase and the 77gr bullet retains more velocity.

If you do not like .223 you do not have to buy an AR chambered for such. There are quite a few other factory chambered calibers you can buy now and never even bother with a .223.

Paladin_Hammer
March 29, 2009, 10:54 PM
You said that the only use for a rifle is hunting outside of the military or LE. If you really believe that then it's no wonder you don't like the AR15.

You can't seriously believe that rifles have no use other than hunting can you? If you do then I can see why you can't figure out the use of rifles like AR15's.

Clint Smith said "Handguns are used to fight your way to your rifle".

In nearly any defensive situation you can envision, a rifle is better than a handgun. That is the "niche" of the AR and similar rifles.

Somehow you have the idea that the 5.56 just bounces off the human body or something. Nothing is further from the truth.

For self defense or defense of your home there is little better suited than a rifle.

If you keep trying to force AR style rifles into a hunting niche than sure, it's not the best choice. But hunting is most certainly not the only use for a rifle.


I never said they bounce off the human body. I even said they could go straight through someone! Then the wall, then maybe someone else, then perhaps into a neighbors house...

If your outside and/or at ranges greater than 20 yards a rifle certainly wins out against a human target. But for home defense, don't most home defense situations occur IN a home? I've never been in a house with a wall-to-wall range greater than 20-30 yards. In a regular home I see a shotgun doing better than a rifle, a "click" isn't as scary as a shotgun racking either.

I never said it didn't have other uses, I said a rifles PRIMARY use outside of LE or Military was hunting. I'll go ahead and tack on "survival" after that, because I've met my share of backpackers who've stated they carry a rifle with them when making long hikes through big forests or mountains.

I also never said I didn't like them either, I've even said they are a sexy, cool rifle. I just can't figure out the utility of one or how it's better for non-LE/Mil purposes in its STOCK form.

I think the answer to your quest lies in the leftwing anti gun faction that says we know what you need and it isn't that.
How dare you question what another man wants, there is to much of that going on in our society, what if it costs 2x what a bolt gun costs IVAN its our money.

I'm not questiong why someone would want one, that's up to whoever buys one. I'm asking what it's good for. Maybe you and IVAN can hang out sometime, your both hot-headed and too illogical to be taken seriously.

Do some learning before you post.

That's kind of why I'm posting. By the way, "Do some learning"... yeah...

Paladin Hammer:

It is legal in Nebraska, which is where I do most of my deer hunting. To be legal the round must generate 900 foot pounds of energy at 100 yards. The winchester or federal 64 gr soft point will acheive this mark. It is also legal in a host of other states but I have not had firsthand experience hunting in any of them.

Holy crap someone posted some useful information. Thanks HGUNHNTR. Could have used more guys like you posting in this thread.

.223 is legal in SD for deer, antelope, turkey, and any small game.

As I recall .223 is also legal in Missouri for deer hunting too. I have used .223 on deer (mule deer) and it works just fine. In fact a 60gr Nosler Partition does a pretty fair job for me on deer and speed goats.

On your apparent lack of bullet fragmentation, let me clear it up for you Paladin. The M4 has had issues getting reliable fragmentation with the M855 round at ranges beyond 100yds because the velocity is not always high enough to exert the leverage needed to fragment that particular bullet (pretty tough FMJ) to come apart in tissue. At closer ranges they fragment quite reliably as the impact velocity is higher. The newer, heavier ammo is longer and allows tissue to exert greater leverage over a longer area to fragment. The heavier 77gr ammo also has more energy, especially as distances increase and the 77gr bullet retains more velocity.

If you do not like .223 you do not have to buy an AR chambered for such. There are quite a few other factory chambered calibers you can buy now and never even bother with a .223.

Hot damn two good posts in a row! So do civilian M4 clones achieve the velocity necessary to fragment? I'm guessing from HGUNHNTR that those heavier loads are also hunting-legal?

Titan6
March 29, 2009, 10:55 PM
The M4 has had issues getting reliable fragmentation with the M855 round at ranges beyond 100yds because the velocity is not always high enough to exert the leverage needed to fragment that particular bullet (pretty tough FMJ) to come apart in tissue.

True that but civilians are not constrained to a world of poor choices. They can put whatever they want in their gun.

TexasRifleman
March 29, 2009, 10:58 PM
In a regular home I see a shotgun doing better than a rifle, a "click" isn't as scary as a shotgun racking either.

Most police departments and other defense professionals are disagreeing with you on this. The move from shotguns to rifles for this has been remarkable. It all revolves around proper ammo choice as I posted.

If you choose the wrong ammo then sure, 5.56 or any rifle will punch holes and keep going.

But that's not the fault of the rifle, that's the fault of the shooter not knowing what they are doing.

Should you use FMJ in an apartment building? Of course not. That doesn't mean that a rifle is a bad choice, that means the ammo was poorly selected.

Fire off some .45 ACP ball ammo in an apartment and see what you get.

Rifles for CQB are pretty much the standard these days.

Read up on ammo like the Mk262Mod1 or the Hornady TAP.

The firearm is just the bullet delivery mechanism. And as mentioned the AR design is available in many calibers besides 5.56.

I'm a big fan of the 6.8SPC though I don't own one myself.

Coal Dragger
March 29, 2009, 10:58 PM
^ Exactly, for example the excellent 60gr Partition.

atlanticfire
March 29, 2009, 10:59 PM
nothing. . . .

Titan6
March 29, 2009, 11:00 PM
If your outside and/or at ranges greater than 20 yards a rifle certainly wins out against a human target. But for home defense, don't most home defense situations occur IN a home? I've never been in a house with a wall-to-wall range greater than 20-30 yards. In a regular home I see a shotgun doing better than a rifle, a "click" isn't as scary as a shotgun racking either.

You still don't understand what you are talking about. You are bringing more than a few dispelled myths out such as the "shotgun racking" idiocy.

I use a shotgun with slugs for HD because I have interior brick walls. If they were normal wood and paper I wood use an AR in .223 with fragmenting bullets. This would be much safer than slugs or buckshot going through my walls.

yesit'sloaded
March 29, 2009, 11:01 PM
You made me come out of my hole and post for the first time in a while. ARs come in many rifle calibers including .308, .243, .223, .222, .22lr, 6.8mm,, and even 50 BMG as well as 9mm and .45acp. They are low recoiling, accurate, and before this gun ban panic madness could actually be bought brand new unassembled for under $600 easily. Changing calibers is as easy as switching uppers, which can be bought and shipped to your door because they are not a firearm. Think of it as a Thompson Center, but semiautomatic and you start to get the idea.

Dark Skies
March 29, 2009, 11:01 PM
When the zombies come you'll be glad of that AR15! :)

benzy2
March 29, 2009, 11:02 PM
I think it does a lot well. Blasting with it is a blast. Hunting small game is a blast. I would use it in HD for sure. Punching paper with it is fun. Shooting high power with it is also a ton of fun. There seem to be a lot of uses for the AR. It may not be the magic rifle for everything but it certainly is a lot of fun for me. If you don't like them by all means don't buy them. More for me.

ETA:

You say the .30-06 is legal to hunt deer in every state. Here in Ohio no centerfire is legal for deer. To me a bolt action anything is just as useless from a hunting point of view or however you worded it. Other than the shotgun and a .22 or two they are basically all toys for entertainment. The AR is just the form of entertainment I enjoy. Really $800 isn't much. Not much is out there below $800 that is a lot of fun to me. Most of the rifles below $800 need a new trigger and possibly a new stock at the least. Any Savage or Remington I would buy would end up having a good $800 in it to really enjoy. Heck even the .22LRs can rack up to $800 without really trying. I would rather buy a rifle I enjoy than the absolute cheapest thing I can to get the job done. Little of my shooting time is done hunting so fun rifles are much more important to me than utilitarian.

fireman 9731
March 29, 2009, 11:02 PM
I think this is less of a caliber question than a platform question...

I have nothing against the .223 round, I do however have questions on why an AR is so expensive, why it feels like a toy when I shoulder it...

Titan6
March 29, 2009, 11:04 PM
I have nothing against the .223 round, I do however have questions on why an AR is so expensive, why it feels like a toy when I shoulder it...

Let's see... made in America, not some 3rd world back water, meant to be light weight and easy to handle.... too easy... give us something hard...

X-Rap
March 29, 2009, 11:04 PM
I know there are plenty of AR-15 fanatics here. But no matter how much I read about accuracy, customization, light-weight, size, and range, I can't figure out what on earth the AR-15 is GOOD for.


I can't think of good use for twinkies and cupcakes either, how about those arcaic blackpowder guns, That 9mm hi capacity pistol doesn't seem to serve any GOOD purpose either. Maybe the same can be said for traps, bows and arrows, and even fish hooks.

TexasRifleman
March 29, 2009, 11:06 PM
I do however have questions on why an AR is so expensive, why it feels like a toy when I shoulder it...

Expensive compared to what? You can get a generic AR in the $600-$700 range (momentary panic buying notwithstanding).
Compared to Century AK's made of stamped sheet metal assembled by monkeys? Yeah, it's probably more expensive than that. Not that AK's cannot be made entirely reliable, but a quality AK is going to run in the $1000 range or so. Think Arsenal etc.

As for the feel, it's a very light rifle. If you want something that feels heavy they are out there, mostly with wood stocks. Nothing wrong with that but just because the AR's are light weight doesn't mean much.

They are designed to be carried around, everywhere. Lug one around for several days and you will be grateful for that light weight :)

Don't get me wrong, I'm not an AR fan boy. I prefer things in .308 most of the time, but the AR is a fine design that has stood the test of time better than most. Blowing it off entirely is simply shallow thinking.

yesit'sloaded
March 29, 2009, 11:06 PM
ARs are actually not that expensive compared to a comparative weapon. AK copies and SKS rifles are cheaper because they are all 50 years+ old or have been built from military surplus parts. ARs are new manufacture built from an aircraft aluminum alloy to high tolerances by American labor.

Coal Dragger
March 29, 2009, 11:07 PM
Hunting rifles serve no real useful purpose either. You can buy meat at the grocery store for crying out loud.

The Deer Hunter
March 29, 2009, 11:11 PM
Well ask that question about any firearm. What makes a firearm unique and desirable? Caliber, action type, reloading system, size, shoulderability, pointability, etc. It's all different and usually subjective.

I am undecided on the AR-15. I have a complete lower.

It's not practical for most people to "multi task" like you guys all talk about. I think most shooters don't spend as much on guns than most of the members here and just don't have a need for it.

It can be a hunting rifle, it can be a self defense rifle, it can be a target rifle, it can be a lot of things, but there are a lot more guns that can do the same thing. For example; my Remington 700 is a great hunting rifle. An AR-15 can be just as good of a hunting rifle, but I chose my Remington 700 instead. Why? Because I did. So one reason people like them is just because it's their thing and they dig it.


Also take into consideration the cool factor. I think a lot of young guys who are new into shooting get them. It's also just a cool thing.


Sorry for the lot of unfinished thoughts but I really think a lot of guys like the gun.

yesit'sloaded
March 29, 2009, 11:11 PM
.308 AR 15 (AR10 actually) bear hunting: http://www.dpmsinc.com/awards/zone/animals/photos/Wayne-Christensen-large.jpg
Remington AR in .243 :http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/remington-r-25-tm.jpg
Walnut if you're into wood :http://www.lakesideguns.com/title1/indxlm7wlnt550.jpg

fireman 9731
March 29, 2009, 11:12 PM
I know I'm going to open up a can of worms on this one....

But ARs just seem so cliche

Leaky Waders
March 29, 2009, 11:13 PM
1) They are the present 'sword' of democracy. Maybe people want to have some connection with the good guys?

2) Millions of service men and women have been trained on the AR platform. Many are not gun enthusiasts (meaning people who like to know alot about a wide variety of weapons). Maybe they just want a weapon for home defense that they feel very comfortable with?

3) The AR has many after market parts and accessories. It's the adult lego. maybe some people just want a hobby of modifying an existing platform?

4) The AR can be hunting, target, home-defense, military, family heirloom weapon. Many critics have debated it's merits in every role. Still, there's a loyal following. What's so wrong with that?

5) Americans have a right to keep and bear arms...and guess what? It doesn't matter if that gun is accompanied by a hunting license or not. So hunting arguments have little merit in the justification of a legal weapon.

yesit'sloaded
March 29, 2009, 11:13 PM
Winchester model 70s were last generation's AR in the cliche sense.

TexasRifleman
March 29, 2009, 11:14 PM
But ARs just seem so cliche

So you're going off of "feelings" rather than any facts. That's fine, I've bought many firearms off of feelings, but they are not something you can really debate.

Eb1
March 29, 2009, 11:14 PM
By not owning one. I would say you are missing out on a lot.

Duke of Doubt
March 29, 2009, 11:14 PM
They aren't bad target shooters.

They aren't bad survival or home defense weapons, particularly for those having some acreage and multiple buildings/outbuildings and many approaches to defend at distance.

In a survival situation where you travel or otherwise remain on the move and in the field for extended periods, a rifle is better than a pistol. I consider an AK better than an AR for this purpose -- lighter, smaller (especially with folding stock), more rugged -- but some prefer the AR.

And finally, some people buy them for professional reasons having little or nothing to do with the above. Some of us buy them because we occasionally are paid to carry guns and/or train other individuals to use guns, and our clients prefer to see their part-time "bodyguard" with an AR -- more "official" and paramilitary-looking than an AK, to them -- and to be instructed on an "M16". Some buy them because they like to practice with their military issue weapons before or in between periods of active military duty. That's why some of us purchase Beretta 92FS pistols and AR-pattern rifles and carbines, and practice with them using ball ammunition in military shooting positions.

Titan6
March 29, 2009, 11:16 PM
....ARs are new manufacture...

I don't know about that.... even the used ones that are 30 years old go for new prices. I am just saying... ya know

fireman 9731
March 29, 2009, 11:16 PM
ARs, to me are the jack of all trades but the master of none....

yesit'sloaded
March 29, 2009, 11:17 PM
don't know about that.... even the used ones that are 30 years old go for new prices.
Colt AR koolaid drinkers are just as bad if not worse than the Glock fanboys:rolleyes:

Titan6
March 29, 2009, 11:19 PM
Colt AR koolaid drinkers are just as bad if not worse than the Glock fanboys

Ain't that the truth! :D

RP88
March 29, 2009, 11:19 PM
All I've heard so far in a nutshell is "if it can't be used to hunt in stock form, then it isn't that useful."

Well, it can't be LEGALLY used to hunt with, but that doesn't stop people with 9mm pistols and .22 rifles from poaching or otherwise hunting illegally. The .223 will drop a deer no problem. Just don't get caught.

Paladin_Hammer
March 29, 2009, 11:19 PM
You still don't understand what you are talking about. You are bringing more than a few dispelled myths out such as the "shotgun racking" idiocy.

I use a shotgun with slugs for HD because I have interior brick walls. If they were normal wood and paper I wood use an AR in .223 with fragmenting bullets. This would be much safer than slugs or buckshot going through my walls.


But what about us who just have regular, Drywall? And the Box O Truth didn't seem to think that 00 Buckshot overpenetrated to much.

I can't think of good use for twinkies and cupcakes either, how about those arcaic blackpowder guns, That 9mm hi capacity pistol doesn't seem to serve any GOOD purpose either. Maybe the same can be said for traps, bows and arrows, and even fish hooks.

Your to angry and... something else to be taken seriously at the moment. Seriously, if I'm living in a society where questions are to be treated with hostility then maybe your the Ivan?

Hunting rifles serve no real useful purpose either. You can buy meat at the grocery store for crying out loud.

Careful, X-Rap probably thinks your a communist by now! :D Hunting is a heck of a lot better than buying meat. You either get fat, at 5.99 a pound from Wally-World or pure lean meat that you killed yourself and processed yourself.

Expensive compared to what? You can get a generic AR in the $600-$700 range (momentary panic buying notwithstanding).
Compared to Century AK's made of stamped sheet metal assembled by monkeys? Yeah, it's probably more expensive than that. Not that AK's cannot be made entirely reliable, but a quality AK is going to run in the $1000 range or so. Think Arsenal etc.

As for the feel, it's a very light rifle. If you want something that feels heavy they are out there, mostly with wood stocks. Nothing wrong with that but just because the AR's are light weight doesn't mean much.

They are designed to be carried around, everywhere. Lug one around for several days and you will be grateful for that light weight

Don't get me wrong, I'm not an AR fan boy. I prefer things in .308 most of the time, but the AR is a fine design that has stood the test of time better than most. Blowing it off entirely is simply shallow thinking.

That's something that AK fans have me questioning. They brag all day long about how they only paid $599 for their Romy AK, but really? It's made with parts deemed unsuitable for the Romanian military. Most other AK's are either knock-offs or decades old hand-me-downs. At $500+ you could probably do better utility-wise with a Mini-30 or a lever-gun.

The light-weight on AR's are nice. Like I said, plenty weigh around 5 pounds (someone makes a 4.5 pound AR I hear?).

And again I'm not trying to hate on the AR, or blow it off. I'm just trying to understand it. If that's to much to ask, then X-Rap is probably frothing mad at the Comy world were living in :rolleyes: .

All I've heard so far in a nutshell is "if it can't be used to hunt in stock form, then it isn't that useful."

Well, it can't be LEGALLY used to hunt with, but that doesn't stop people with 9mm pistols and .22 rifles from poaching or otherwise hunting illegally. The .223 will drop a deer no problem. Just don't get caught.

Yeah, that's not something I think we need to be associating ourselves with... we already get enough hell from anti-gun nuts. We don't need to be advocating something illegal.

R 15 (AR10 actually) bear hunting:
Remington AR in .243 :
Walnut if you're into wood :

That's more reasonable. AR-10's and other larger caliber AR's are certainly good hunters. I've never seen a .308 fail to take deer (or bear, or moose, or... well there isn't a lot a .308 can't take down).

And finally, some people buy them for professional reasons having little or nothing to do with the above. Some of us buy them because we occasionally are paid to carry guns and/or train other individuals to use guns, and our clients prefer to see their part-time "bodyguard" with an AR -- more "official" and paramilitary-looking than an AK, to them -- and to be instructed on an "M16". Some buy them because they like to practice with their military issue weapons before or in between periods of active military duty. That's why some of us purchase Beretta 92FS pistols and AR-pattern rifles and carbines, and practice with them using ball ammunition in military shooting positions.

Professionals, even private citizens like body-guards and PMC's, certainly will find a use for an AR-15. Like I said, the 5.56x45 doesn't have problem with people (and walls). If it did, a lot of Iraqis, Vietnamese, and British Troops in North Ireland would be walking around today. And if your walking in the open at the flank of someone, I imagine anyone trying to harm that someone would skip a heartbeat at the sight on an AR-15.

It's the utility, IE non-LEO/Mil/contractor purposes I was having questions about. Two of the guys on page 1 told me what I wanted to know regarding hunting. Apparently the 64 and up bullets are powerful enough to be legal and hence many states reversed their stance on it as a hunting cartridge.

gladi8tr
March 29, 2009, 11:22 PM
:banghead:

taliv
March 29, 2009, 11:23 PM
guys, this thread is bad enough... let's not let it drift into personal attacks

TexasRifleman
March 29, 2009, 11:25 PM
The .223 will drop a deer no problem. Just don't get caught.

Huh? In case you didn't know it hunting with .223/5.56 is legal in many places. Quite ethical too if you choose your ammo and shot properly.

Prion
March 29, 2009, 11:25 PM
Fun, fun, fun! Fun to shoot, fun to modify, fun hobby! It's not breaking my bank so I don't need to justify it's role in my life except for pure enjoyment. I don't use it mine for hunting or HD, only shooting targets and tuning it. Fun Gun!

Titan6
March 29, 2009, 11:25 PM
But what about us who just have regular, Drywall? And the Box O Truth didn't seem to think that 00 Buckshot over penetrated to much.

I was talking about wood framed dry wall which is essentially gypsum and paper; but it matters not. Your walls, your family, your call. Keep in mind that the BoT is entertainment not science.

Leaky Waders
March 29, 2009, 11:26 PM
I made a stab at a post trying to explain why some peopel like AR's, as well as some very savvy people. Duke of Doubts response is very good.

But to argue just for the sake of arguing does no one any good. If you don't like AR's then don't get one. You have to pay for it if you do get one - you justify your purchase.

yesit'sloaded
March 29, 2009, 11:27 PM
Did we mention yet that in certain circumstances having 30 rounds of ammo on tap and the ability to have 30 more in under 2 seconds is not a bad thing? I hunt with a 7.62mm battle rifle that does double duty as my personal defense rifle, I have 5 rounders for hunting that don't get snagged on brush, but 30s are nice at the range and if I ever need to use the gun for social work .

Titan6
March 29, 2009, 11:32 PM
Did we mention yet that in certain circumstances having 30 rounds of ammo on tap and the ability to have 30 more in under 2 seconds is not a bad thing?

Shush! You are going to scare people with that kind of crazy talk!

yesit'sloaded
March 29, 2009, 11:33 PM
They are reliable as well, all Vietnam horror stories aside. I've yet to see a more reliable semi-auto other than the AK platform, which has its own set of disadvantages.

Paladin_Hammer
March 29, 2009, 11:37 PM
But to argue just for the sake of arguing does no one any good. If you don't like AR's then don't get one. You have to pay for it if you do get one - you justify your purchase.

Oh for God's sake. I'm not trying to argue with anyone. I'm NOT knocking on the AR-15! I'm trying to understand the damn thing! Is that really so much to ask? Am I really committing such heresy by asking?!

Jesus if anything is actually turning me off about this thing its the air of arrogance some of guys posting here are giving me for just asking a few freaking questions! Did I die and go to fanboy hell?

I'm not talking about the following members: yesit'sloaded, Duke of Doubt, HGUNHNTR, and (save the instance he jumped on hunting like it wasn't worthwhile or whatever he was implying) Coal Dragger. You guys have actually been great. Nothing but good information from you.

Guys like X-Rap on the other hand have me wondering if I should never buy an AR-15 if only to isolate myself from a segment of the population I never want to associate with.

Sagetown
March 29, 2009, 11:37 PM
Paladin Hammer : I can't figure out what on earth the AR-15 is GOOD for.

Lot's of great answers, but I probably wouldn't have one except for the fact that I lived with one every day back in the late 60's. Every where I went it went with me.

It protected my life. I had to rely on it for self preservation.

When I slept, it was right beside me cocked and locked.

When we got to eat at an army mess hall, we stacked our weapons (by 4's) like a TeePee beside each table.

Needless to say, it made an impression on me, and when I got the opportunity to have my own, I took it. JMO :D

oldFred
March 29, 2009, 11:38 PM
IMO, these are MY rules.

1. Anything short of .30 caliber is ineffective. Period.
2. My first experience with an AR-15 Bushmaster brand new resulted in a jam that required a screwdriver and two people to clear a live round caught between the bolt and hollow space above it. Bad design, VERY BAD DESIGN.
3. Short barrels are inaccurate > 75 yards.
4. I will NEVER own an AR, as they are only good for killing people. (not my bag of tricks and you will have to unload the magazine into the victim, see rule #1)
5. M1A (M14 .308 NATO) is WAY WAY more superior to the M16/AR15 any day of the week. Try shooting 5000 rounds through both without cleaning.
6. What the hell is the handle for? Anyone ever used a sling?


Thank you for this thread. I just got done with a Taurus bashing thread, and are grateful I could bash Ed Stoner's horrible design. It's funny how I read that our soldiers want the M14/M1911 back! It just tickles me pink.

TexasRifleman
March 29, 2009, 11:40 PM
3. Short barrels are inaccurate > 75 yards.

Umm. Huh? Barrel length on a rifle does not affect accuracy, only velocity.

yesit'sloaded
March 29, 2009, 11:40 PM
Shush! You are going to scare people with that kind of crazy talk!I hope that was sarcasm. Even chairborne internet commandos can't hit with every round in a real, honest to goodness firefight. I hope I'm never in one in any shape or form other than training, but stuff gets nasty quick. Airsoft as a force on force trainer is eye opening, as is an action based rifle competition. Usually if your firing back with a rifle the bad guy(s) are armed as well, and the best shots miss when dodging bullets.

fireman 9731
March 29, 2009, 11:40 PM
To me, when I shoulder a rifle or shotgun, it should feel good. It should have good ergonomics and mesh with me, it should smoothly become an extension of my body. I should be able to get a good cheek weld, my hands should be relaxed, and I should feel comfortable.

I have shouldered about a half dozen ARs... at first I thought it was just the adjustable stock, then I tried another, and another, then one with a full stock, different hand rails, pistol grips, you name it.

None of it felt good to me. Maybe I'm crazy.

And then there is always "the gun guy" which is discussed in this thread: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=438105&highlight=dealing+guy

You rarely hear some idiot jabbering about his Ruger 10/22, Remington 700, 870, Sharps 45-70, or his Marlin lever gun. If I had a dollar for every time that I have heard some ignorant "gun guy" jabber on and on about his AR and how magical it was I would have enough money to buy one of my own!

X-Rap
March 29, 2009, 11:41 PM
Sorry I'm getting all ignorant about you topic but as an owner and shooter of basicly all configurations of guns aside from FA. I guess I am personally offended by the requirement of what in your eyes is some kind of worthy utility. Many follow up answers have not swayed you and you call me the facist for me defending the right to own what one chooses. I am not the one here claiming to question the validity of the Americans right to arm themselves as they see fit or at the very least give a compeling reason for ownership.
I would feel the same if you would have questioned the validity of a 50BMG or a NEF 20ga. Nobody has the right to be taken seriously with a post like that one starting this thread, you have a right to post it but don't get your FOTL's all wadded up when somebody takes offense.

Deer Hunter
March 29, 2009, 11:42 PM
Well if you can't see it, we can't point it out to you.

You stick to what you like. We'll stick to ours.

Titan6
March 29, 2009, 11:43 PM
Does not compute:

March 29, 2009

Paladin Hammer

Oh for God's sake. I'm not trying to argue with anyone. I'm NOT knocking on the AR-15! I'm trying to understand the damn thing! Is that really so much to ask? Am I really committing such heresy by asking?!

Nov 23, 2008

Paladin Hammer:

The simple fact of the matter is that in most states it wasn't all to long ago that the .223 Remingtion cartridge was BANNED for use in hunting White-tail deer because conservation departments nation-wide found the round lacked sufficient power to drop a deer in one shot. The newer, heavier rounds just barely meet standards to do so. Ask anyone who ever served in Veitnam, the 5.56 isn't a killing machine, its an accuracy machine. Hell, I haven't met a guy at the VFW in Kearney, MO, who said he thought he could kill someone with the 5.56 without hitting a vital part.

Quote:
The real reason we are getting these reports is one of a few reasons:

A) The soldier/marine missed but thinks he hit the bad guy.

B) The soldier/marine did not get a good COM hit.

C) The soldier/marine doesnt really understand human physiology and has unreal expectations of what a gun should do to a person due to movies.

D) Some people by the grace of god survive things they shouldnt.
Thats got to be the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

First off, MISSING with a 5.56? Maybe if the guy never shot before, but Marines and Army grunts these days are held to a high standard with their rifles. This isn't the day of the M1 Carbine, and these aren't AK-47's. Their M16s and M4s. These rifles are used in competitions all over the states because its hard NOT to hit something.

Second, a "good hit", you probably mean one to a vital. I'd like to see anyone in the face of danger stop and think about the shot he's making. Generally, you get your rifle on target and shoot.

Thirdly, you compare our men in Iraq and Afghanistan to kids? These guys don't go through over 6 months of training to think that their rifles have Hollywood's physics defying bullets in it. These aren't morons, their soldiers. You should think a little better of them.

Fourthly, getting shot in the body and having the bullet go straight through you IS NOT something you should survive, grace of god or otherwise. You shoot anyone in the body with a rifle caliber .303, .308, .270, or other caliber bigger than .22 (by at least .05 inches), and they WILL go down. The heavier bullet means it can store more energy, which in turn causes greater injury to the target upon impact. It's simple physics. If I threw a pen at you, you'd be a little agitated. Now, if I threw a rock at you, you'd bleed or have a broke bone. If I hit you with a car doing 40 mph or more, you'd probably be dead. Just use your common sense.

The reason you don't hear high praise of the .223 at Veterans Associations is because in combat, your best hope of getting a killing shot is to place one in the head or heart (or other vital organ). The reason it was unavailable for hunting purposes for years is because it lacked sufficient energy and mass to drop a deer in one shot if you didn't hit vitals.

The 7.62x39mm has been used for hunting since its appearance in the North American market because it retains the energy and has the mass to kill, within its ranges (usually that is 100 meters to 150 meters, depending on the weight and powder load). The reason the .270 Winchester is such a better killer is because it bullet's weight is enough that once combined with speed is enough to break bones and stop hearts upon impact. Hell, I shot my first buck with a .270, in the NECK, missed every vital part in said area, but the shear force of the round hitting the deer caused the wind pipe to rupture and tear open. I hunt with the 7.62x39 now (damn the price of .270), and I've got one doe, a shot to the upper back, the bullet missing the spinal cord directly (a little low). However, the hit itself causes the poor things back to break, and upon inspection I found that I'd broke a rib and that in turn cut into its chest organs, making the process of getting the organs out a real pain in the ass. But it did the job.

I've never seen anyone bring down a deer with a .223 in one shot who didn't end up chasing it all over the place. It can be done, but your pressing the limits of the cartridges design by using heavier bullets.

Coal Dragger
March 29, 2009, 11:45 PM
Wow this thread is really drawing the ignorant to it like moths to a candle.

I especially enjoyed the short barrels are inaccurate comment. Rarely do I encounter such stupidity.

Even better when the poster of the above mentioned idiot comment does't even know the name of the guy who designed the rifle he is condemning. FYI it's not "Ed"..... moron.

yesit'sloaded
March 29, 2009, 11:46 PM
Oh dear. Here we go, hopefully in a logical manner.
IMO, these are MY rules.

1. Anything short of .30 caliber is ineffective. Period.

Just plain wrong. I can't even begin to state why.

2. My first experience with an AR-15 Bushmaster brand new resulted in a jam that required a screwdriver and two people to clear a live round caught between the bolt and hollow space above it. Bad design, VERY BAD DESIGN.

Operator error would be my guess, or out of spec assembly, or a bad magazine.

3. Short barrels are inaccurate > 75 yards.

Texas pointed this out, length only affects velocity.

4. I will NEVER own an AR, as they are only good for killing people. (not my bag of tricks and you will have to unload the magazine into the victim, see rule #1)

What are other guns for then? Guns kill. It is indeed a fact.

5. M1A (M14 .308 NATO) is WAY WAY more superior to the M16/AR15 any day of the week. Try shooting 5000 rounds through both without cleaning.

They are heavier and the wooden stock can swell and throw off accuracy.

6. What the hell is the handle for? Anyone ever used a sling?

I use both.


Thank you for this thread. I just got done with a Taurus bashing thread, and are grateful I could bash Ed Stoner's horrible design. It's funny how I read that our soldiers want the M14/M1911 back! It just tickles me pink.

I trained on an M16 A4 manufactured by FN, and I've seen what it can do to the human body. I've also shot M1As. I own and shoot 7.62mm weapons and I'd rather carry an M16.

Paladin_Hammer
March 29, 2009, 11:47 PM
IMO, these are MY rules.

1. Anything short of .30 caliber is ineffective. Period.
2. My first experience with an AR-15 Bushmaster brand new resulted in a jam that required a screwdriver and two people to clear a live round caught between the bolt and hollow space above it. Bad design, VERY BAD DESIGN.
3. Short barrels are inaccurate > 75 yards.
4. I will NEVER own an AR, as they are only good for killing people. (not my bag of tricks and you will have to unload the magazine into the victim, see rule #1)
5. M1A (M14 .308 NATO) is WAY WAY more superior to the M16/AR15 any day of the week. Try shooting 5000 rounds through both without cleaning.
6. What the hell is the handle for? Anyone ever used a sling?


Thank you for this thread. I just got done with a Taurus bashing thread, and are grateful I could bash Ed Stoner's horrible design. It's funny how I read that our soldiers want the M14/M1911 back! It just tickles me pink.


1. I used to think that. But I've got to many relatives taking deer, moose, and everything else with .270 Winchester to think that bullet size matters.
2. That's something I keep hearing, and have seen. At Parma Woods in KC one guy had a round to well entrenched in his Bushmaster he actually put a good sized dent in the barrel and then wrecked the bolt trying to get a cartridge out. He also destroyed the rod after the extractor tore up the case. Maybe that's just something with Bushmasters? Dunno.
3. Don't know, trying to find out.
4. Sometimes that necessary, but usually its avoidable.
5. If only I had $1500 :D
6. Ease?

I've seen a few articles about soldiers wanting more stopping power and penetration at range too. But that's a soldiers work/opinion, one I'm not asking for and will probably not need in my life (unless I ever join up, which isn't in the plan so far).

Does not compute:

March 29, 2009

Paladin Hammer

Quote:
Oh for God's sake. I'm not trying to argue with anyone. I'm NOT knocking on the AR-15! I'm trying to understand the damn thing! Is that really so much to ask? Am I really committing such heresy by asking?!
Nov 23, 2008

Quote:
Paladin Hammer:

The simple fact of the matter is that in most states it wasn't all to long ago that the .223 Remingtion cartridge was BANNED for use in hunting White-tail deer because conservation departments nation-wide found the round lacked sufficient power to drop a deer in one shot. The newer, heavier rounds just barely meet standards to do so. Ask anyone who ever served in Veitnam, the 5.56 isn't a killing machine, its an accuracy machine. Hell, I haven't met a guy at the VFW in Kearney, MO, who said he thought he could kill someone with the 5.56 without hitting a vital part.

Quote:
The real reason we are getting these reports is one of a few reasons:

A) The soldier/marine missed but thinks he hit the bad guy.

B) The soldier/marine did not get a good COM hit.

C) The soldier/marine doesnt really understand human physiology and has unreal expectations of what a gun should do to a person due to movies.

D) Some people by the grace of god survive things they shouldnt.
Thats got to be the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

First off, MISSING with a 5.56? Maybe if the guy never shot before, but Marines and Army grunts these days are held to a high standard with their rifles. This isn't the day of the M1 Carbine, and these aren't AK-47's. Their M16s and M4s. These rifles are used in competitions all over the states because its hard NOT to hit something.

Second, a "good hit", you probably mean one to a vital. I'd like to see anyone in the face of danger stop and think about the shot he's making. Generally, you get your rifle on target and shoot.

Thirdly, you compare our men in Iraq and Afghanistan to kids? These guys don't go through over 6 months of training to think that their rifles have Hollywood's physics defying bullets in it. These aren't morons, their soldiers. You should think a little better of them.

Fourthly, getting shot in the body and having the bullet go straight through you IS NOT something you should survive, grace of god or otherwise. You shoot anyone in the body with a rifle caliber .303, .308, .270, or other caliber bigger than .22 (by at least .05 inches), and they WILL go down. The heavier bullet means it can store more energy, which in turn causes greater injury to the target upon impact. It's simple physics. If I threw a pen at you, you'd be a little agitated. Now, if I threw a rock at you, you'd bleed or have a broke bone. If I hit you with a car doing 40 mph or more, you'd probably be dead. Just use your common sense.

The reason you don't hear high praise of the .223 at Veterans Associations is because in combat, your best hope of getting a killing shot is to place one in the head or heart (or other vital organ). The reason it was unavailable for hunting purposes for years is because it lacked sufficient energy and mass to drop a deer in one shot if you didn't hit vitals.

The 7.62x39mm has been used for hunting since its appearance in the North American market because it retains the energy and has the mass to kill, within its ranges (usually that is 100 meters to 150 meters, depending on the weight and powder load). The reason the .270 Winchester is such a better killer is because it bullet's weight is enough that once combined with speed is enough to break bones and stop hearts upon impact. Hell, I shot my first buck with a .270, in the NECK, missed every vital part in said area, but the shear force of the round hitting the deer caused the wind pipe to rupture and tear open. I hunt with the 7.62x39 now (damn the price of .270), and I've got one doe, a shot to the upper back, the bullet missing the spinal cord directly (a little low). However, the hit itself causes the poor things back to break, and upon inspection I found that I'd broke a rib and that in turn cut into its chest organs, making the process of getting the organs out a real pain in the ass. But it did the job.

I've never seen anyone bring down a deer with a .223 in one shot who didn't end up chasing it all over the place. It can be done, but your pressing the limits of the cartridges design by using heavier bullets.

What doesn't compute here? I heard about the .223 being banned, I didn't know what made the new bullets legal. And I still don't know what the availability of said cartridges is. Of course it can kill a deer, but humanely? That's something I had questions about.

Sorry I'm getting all ignorant about you topic but as an owner and shooter of basicly all configurations of guns aside from FA. I guess I am personally offended by the requirement of what in your eyes is some kind of worthy utility. Many follow up answers have not swayed you and you call me the facist for me defending the right to own what one chooses. I am not the one here claiming to question the validity of the Americans right to arm themselves as they see fit or at the very least give a compeling reason for ownership.
I would feel the same if you would have questioned the validity of a 50BMG or a NEF 20ga. Nobody has the right to be taken seriously with a post like that one starting this thread, you have a right to post it but don't get your FOTL's all wadded up when somebody takes offense.

I never called you a fascist for one. I did jump all over your comparing me to a communist (IVAN). Many follow-up answers HAVE swayed me, see the discussion on hunting. The 64 and up grain bullets retain the energy necessary to put down deer cleanly, thank you to those who made that revelation. In doors and at close range it DOES fragment reliably, apparently depending on the type of ammo used (note: FMJ's are bad in a house). Any gun should have a niche. Something it does that truly sets it aside from the rest. The 7.92x57 Mauser takes down Elephant and is priced under $600 for a rifle. The Mosin-Nagant is cheap and takes deer. The Marlin 30-30 hasn't failed to kill deer in its history and I'll be damned if it isn't a great handling rifle. The AK is proven to be adept at everything save being accurate or good beyond 200 yards. The M1A does everything you ask it to and scoffs at dirt, poor care and will kill a Kodiak when given the chance. The AR-10, as loaded pointed out, is in the same category as the M1A. The AR-15? Well, it's light, and can be customized, but other than taking human beings isn't really know for much else. It's also expensive, and you've got to play around with it and get it new uppers (which no one has found prices better than the ones I've seen) to use other calibers that are better known as deer/game stoppers. And by better known I don't mean the 5.56 is ineffective, as I've stated, I mean that you don't hear a lot about deer being slain by a .223, but you could meet anyone who's seen a .308 kill a deer, or other cartridge of similar build.

And if I can't be taken seriously for ASKING QUESTIONS, then we truly do live in a world of fear and terror. How does my wanting to know more about this rifle than what Wikipedia has to offer remove any merit to the questions? I'll take offense when someone starts baselessly calling me an IVAN (or communist) for just asking questions. Don't get all riled up because I want to know, people have that right.

HB
March 29, 2009, 11:48 PM
You can't hunt with a .223/5.56x45 in most states (I'm pretty sure its still Missouri
Nope, in Missouri you can use ANY centerfire for deer hunting.... Even big-bore airguns now (.40 cal and up).
Haven't read the rest of the thread because of the idiocy contained therein.

HB

Coal Dragger
March 29, 2009, 11:50 PM
Haven't read the rest of the thread because of the idiocy contained therein.

A wise move on your part.

PRE 64 JOE
March 29, 2009, 11:50 PM
A pre64 winny in .700 nitro express and aspirin.:)

alexanderplatz
March 29, 2009, 11:53 PM
My gripe with the AR is that it costs so much but what you get is a plasticky, aluminum thing that I can't see passing down to me grandkids someday. It just seems like something that ought to cost about $600. Maybe someday they'll be in that price range again.

fireman 9731
March 29, 2009, 11:55 PM
Notice that there have been few responses to the actual reasons posted why other people don't like them...

creekerdoug
March 29, 2009, 11:57 PM
The very best, most useful, thing I do with my AR15 is to shoot 3gun and Multigun matches. I've used the AK and FAL platforms and by far the AR is a much better choice for these events. There's a reason the AR platform is the gun of choice of nearly all 3 gunners.

If you don't plan to compete then, perhaps, there are better, more useful, choices for you. For me; I'll stick my AR until I find a better, more cost effective, gun for the events I shoot.

X-Rap
March 29, 2009, 11:57 PM
Some more to the plus side IMO
It is likely in the top 5 rifles as far as numbers in service.
It must have fair ergonomics since the US has been training fairly efficient soldiers with it for the last 50 yrs.
As far as range and effectiveness, I think that speaks for itself.

yesit'sloaded
March 29, 2009, 11:58 PM
How about a little ballistics gel for some information.
Brass Fetcher Ballistic Testing has been in operation since 2004, providing scientifically-repeatable ballistics testing for the private citizen and public sector. We can evaluate every caliber from .22 Short to .50BMG in ballistic gelatin and provide industry-standard body armor/vehicle armor testing against a wide array of ballistic threats.

.308Win (7.62 Nato) 150 grain Game King
http://www.brassfetcher.com/images/150gamekinga.jpg
.223Rem (5.56 Nato) 62 grain Barnes Triple Shock.
http://www.brassfetcher.com/images/62grTshk.JPG

Both are more than enough for deer with the proper bullet.

Titan6
March 30, 2009, 12:02 AM
OP:
You can't hunt with a .223/5.56x45 in most states (I'm pretty sure its still Missouri and Kansas prohibited, and everywhere else... I think Tennessee reversed it's ban but I'm not sure). Seeing as hunting would be the primary use of any rifle if you are NOT Law-Enforcement or Military, then the AR-15 is out of the question here.

Am I missing something here? Is there a sport or animal that the .223 takes down that's legal? I'm not saying their bad rifles, anyone knows that a AR-15 is more than capable of hitting a golf-ball at 100 yards, weighing a mere 5 pounds, fitting in tight spaces, or using more accessories than the rifle itself is worth. But in terms of sheer utility, what's it's niche

Okay a quick review of what we have learned here tonight is in order:

1. There are other uses for rifles other than hunting and combat.

2. The .223/5.56 is legal for hunting and can be used to take medium sized game humanely as was explained to you four months ago (although you already knew that then as well)

3. Lot of people like AR's (I think you knew that too :) )

4. Posting things that you already know to be untrue gets angry responses.

5. Learning is fun!

Have a nice night!

Deer Hunter
March 30, 2009, 12:03 AM
Don't feed the trolls...

oldFred
March 30, 2009, 12:05 AM
Texas Rifleman / Coal Dragger / yesitsloaded,

You aren't aware that shorter barrels are more inaccurate than longer ones? Where have you been?

Spend too much time reading FPS/Energy stats than simple physics? Maybe it hasn't crossed your desk yet that lighter projectiles slow down faster than heavier ones after muzzle exit BECAUSE the velocity is less?

I suppose you also take out deer @ 1000 yards with your 16 inch heavy barreled .17 HMR? :p

It cracks me up everytime I read someone typing that a 16 inch barrel is "so accurate"...

yesit'sloaded
March 30, 2009, 12:09 AM
Spend too much time reading FPS/Energy stats than simple physics? Maybe it hasn't crossed your desk yet that lighter projectiles slow down faster than heavier ones after muzzle exit BECAUSE the velocity is less? The fact that they slow down faster just makes them drop more at shorter ranges. That does not equal less accurate. Not as flat shooting, but not less accurate.

TexasRifleman
March 30, 2009, 12:10 AM
Spend too much time reading FPS/Energy stats than simple physics? Maybe it hasn't crossed your desk yet that lighter projectiles slow down faster than heavier ones after muzzle exit BECAUSE the velocity is less?

That means the velocity is less and the effective range of the bullet is therefore less.

That does not mean that shorter barrels are less accurate, it means they make the firearm have a shorter effective range.

Do you understand what the word "accurate" means?

M&PVolk
March 30, 2009, 12:11 AM
This thread is nonsensical. The original poster lists a plethora of reasons why many people own AR's, and then disregards them and asks why we own AR's simply because he can't hunt deer with it in his state! It is just trollbait.

Titan6
March 30, 2009, 12:12 AM
You aren't aware that shorter barrels are more inaccurate than longer ones? Where have you been?

Perhaps they were just quoting Chuck Hawkes?

Barrel length, accuracy and ballistics

It is worth mentioning that a longer barrel is not inherently more accurate than a short barrel. Intrinsic accuracy is a matter of quality, not length. However, a longer barrel is generally better in terms of practical accuracy, because a longer and therefore heavier barrel (within reason) is easier to hold relatively steady from unsupported positions; thus it is easier to shoot a long barreled rifle accurately.

The length of the rifle barrel has a direct influence on the velocity obtained from the cartridge for which it is chambered. Ballistically, for centerfire calibers, longer is usually better. However, for carrying, handling and maneuvering in close quarters (like thick brush or getting in and out of vehicles), shorter is usually better. Some sort of compromise must therefore be reached.

http://www.chuckhawks.com/rifle_barrel.htm

I am no expert you see...

Paladin_Hammer
March 30, 2009, 12:13 AM
The very best, most useful, thing I do with my AR15 is to shoot 3gun and Multigun matches. I've used the AK and FAL platforms and by far the AR is a much better choice for these events. There's a reason the AR platform is the gun of choice of nearly all 3 gunners.

If you don't plan to compete then, perhaps, there are better, more useful, choices for you. For me; I'll stick my AR until I find a better, more cost effective, gun for the events I shoot.


So there is a sport for them? I knew 3 gun shooters used FALs, but you aren't restricted to "heavy metal" (30 cal and up) on three-gun? Good to know.

yesit'sloaded, good pics man.

OP:
Quote:
You can't hunt with a .223/5.56x45 in most states (I'm pretty sure its still Missouri and Kansas prohibited, and everywhere else... I think Tennessee reversed it's ban but I'm not sure). Seeing as hunting would be the primary use of any rifle if you are NOT Law-Enforcement or Military, then the AR-15 is out of the question here.
Quote:
Am I missing something here? Is there a sport or animal that the .223 takes down that's legal? I'm not saying their bad rifles, anyone knows that a AR-15 is more than capable of hitting a golf-ball at 100 yards, weighing a mere 5 pounds, fitting in tight spaces, or using more accessories than the rifle itself is worth. But in terms of sheer utility, what's it's niche
Okay a quick review of what we have learned here tonight is in order:

1. There are other uses for rifles other than hunting and combat.

2. The .223/5.56 is legal for hunting and can be used to take medium sized game humanely as was explained to you four months ago (although you already knew that then as well)

3. Lot of people like AR's (I think you knew that too )

4. Posting things that you already know to be untrue gets angry responses.

5. Learning is fun!

Have a nice night!

1. Been covered, but I was talking primary use earlier. Don't get pissy.
2. I did not already know that. I HEARD about it. It's not the same as KNOWING. Please read my post in regards to your post on page 3. :fire:
3. Knew that already.
4. I didn't know! PLEASE READ MY POSTS SINCE PAGE 1 PEOPLE! Come one already! I HAVE been making responses! They are there! I know I'm not crazy and imagining I've responded because I've had two people just check it! :eek:
5. Damn right, would be a lot better if the fanboys and wackos and every other type of insecure madman with a anger problem.

Will do! :D

This thread is nonsensical. The original poster lists a plethora of reasons why many people own AR's, and then disregards them and asks why we own AR's simply because he can't hunt deer with it in his state! It is just trollbait.

I asked more than that. There has also been a whole three pages proceeding your post, go ahead a read a little of that. :cuss:

I'm really starting to hate AR-15's based on the security issues some of you guys have... if owning one is going to turn me into a whiny, angry person because someone asks a few questions then maybe I'll just stick isolate myself from them :mad: . Which is a shame, guys like yesit'sloaded and HGNHTR have been nothing but cool and informative :) .

Ed Ames
March 30, 2009, 12:13 AM
Seeing as hunting would be the primary use of any rifle if you are NOT Law-Enforcement or Military, then the AR-15 is out of the question here.

LMAO ... you are obviously not a gun person.

Your biggest mistake is to look for a legitimizing application for a possession. Very few possessions really have such applications. What's the practical use of a hummel figurine, a Dali print, or an ultralight aircraft? There usually isn't one. Those things exist, people get enjoyment from that existence, and creating enjoyment is a positive good.

An AR is fine for anything a rifle is good for. That's perfectly obvious to me...and I don't even own one at the moment. I do have a couple of .223 rifles and they work fine for everything I've used them for. I'm sure an AR would be at least as good.

I have owned rifles for as long as I've been able to own anything, legally speaking, and here's a shocker for you: I have never, not once, hunted. Not on my radar, not important to me, not something that influences my buy decisions at all.

You'd understand that if you enjoyed shooting in itself instead of as a means to an end.

HD Fboy
March 30, 2009, 12:14 AM
Ever Shoot One???

If not, you should.

6 weeks ago I bought my first AR. Now I have 2 223 and a Colt 9mm

Funnest guns I own.

Coal Dragger
March 30, 2009, 12:16 AM
Trying to explain these things to oldFred appears to be a waste of time he is not smart enough to comprehend what is being explained to him.

He also seems to believe that a bullet slows down more because it is too light to maintain speed. So oldFred is also too f'n stupid to understand ballistic coefficients and their effect on trajectory and retained velocity. A 500gr bullet with a BC of .234 with a MV of 2500fps will be slower at 500yds than a 120gr bullet with a BC of .502 starting at the same velocity. In fact you could start off the 120gr .502BC bullet a couple of hundred feet per second slower, and it would still have more velocity at longer distances.

M&PVolk
March 30, 2009, 12:18 AM
Texas Rifleman / Coal Dragger / yesitsloaded,

You aren't aware that shorter barrels are more inaccurate than longer ones? Where have you been?

Spend too much time reading FPS/Energy stats than simple physics? Maybe it hasn't crossed your desk yet that lighter projectiles slow down faster than heavier ones after muzzle exit BECAUSE the velocity is less?

I suppose you also take out deer @ 1000 yards with your 16 inch heavy barreled .17 HMR?

It cracks me up everytime I read someone typing that a 16 inch barrel is "so accurate"...

Perhaps one of the most uninformed things I have read in some time. There are a lot of things about a barrel that can help or hurt accuracy, it just so happens you are pointing out the only thing that has zero influence. Ironic, I know. BTW, a fun study in this is the 1 7/8" barreled Smith and Wesson J-Frame revolver in .38 special...fully capable and proven out to 100 yards.

Titan6
March 30, 2009, 12:18 AM
2. I did not already know that. I HEARD about it. It's not the same as KNOWING. Please read my post in regards to your post on page 3.

4. I didn't know! PLEASE READ MY POSTS SINCE PAGE 1 PEOPLE! Come one already! I HAVE been making responses! They are there! I know I'm not crazy and imagining I've responded because I've had two people just check it!

This is why I said to go educate (rather than embarrass) yourself. But hey, your call.

yesit'sloaded
March 30, 2009, 12:19 AM
BTW, a fun study in this is the 1 7/8" barreled Smith and Wesson J-Frame revolver in .38 special...fully capable and proven out to 100 yards. I actually have confirmed hits on a human sized steel target at 170 yards with one.:D
ETA: To be perfectly fair, it is one of my primary carry gun and I've shot it alot. I was also aiming a few feet above the target to compensate for the drop.

Duke of Doubt
March 30, 2009, 12:20 AM
yesit'sloaded: "The fact that they slow down faster just makes them drop more at shorter ranges. That does not equal less accurate. Not as flat shooting, but not less accurate."

Don't forget the beneficial effect of a longer sight radius, using iron sights, or the steadying effect of more barrel mass further downrange, reducing bore wobble.

Paladin_Hammer
March 30, 2009, 12:21 AM
This is why I said to go educate (rather than embarrass) yourself. But hey, your call.
First off, good job. You've corrected your English. Second off, THIS ****ING THREAD WAS HERE TO EDUCATE ME. But you guys seem hell bent on making me mad.

God! If one thing is clear to me now more so than anything else I've learned, its that asking about AR-15's is some kind of taboo you couldn't make biblical!

LMAO ... you are obviously not a gun person.

I own three. Each with a purpose. Which the AR-15 CAN have, given what's been said here. Read up to page 1 for Godsake.



Your biggest mistake is to look for a legitimizing application for a possession. Very few possessions really have such applications. What's the practical use of a hummel figurine, a Dali print, or an ultralight aircraft? There usually isn't one. Those things exist, people get enjoyment from that existence, and creating enjoyment is a positive good.

I know the ultra-light aircraft moves faster and saves on jet-fuel. Hence why the Military can afford to use UAV's.


An AR is fine for anything a rifle is good for. That's perfectly obvious to me...and I don't even own one at the moment. I do have a couple of .223 rifles and they work fine for everything I've used them for. I'm sure an AR would be at least as good.


That's what we've been talking about, welcome to page 4! Well some of us have been talking about, others seem like they need to defend their rifles to the death more than just answer a few simple questions.


I have owned rifles for as long as I've been able to own anything, legally speaking, and here's a shocker for you: I have never, not once, hunted. Not on my radar, not important to me, not something that influences my buy decisions at all.


Then your missing out. Deer are fun, tasty, and a good project. I guess you shoot three-gun?

You'd understand that if you enjoyed shooting in itself instead of as a means to an end.

Enjoying shooting: I do that. It's what the .22lr is for. But a means to an end does not always mean just fun, but utility. Hence the post.

yesit'sloaded
March 30, 2009, 12:22 AM
A shorter barrel has less time to wobble though;)

X-Rap
March 30, 2009, 12:24 AM
Ha Ha Hammer who is the pissy one:neener: time to go back under your bridge and think up another stupid tread.:scrutiny::evil:

oldFred
March 30, 2009, 12:26 AM
a longer barrel is generally better in terms of practical accuracy,

I think Coal Dragger doesn't get this part of Chucks statement or never understood it to begin with. Therefore he is sniperbait with his "short tool".

:neener:

Titan6
March 30, 2009, 12:28 AM
God! If one thing is clear to me now more so than anything else I've learned, its that asking about AR-15's is some kind of taboo you couldn't make biblical!

Reread post 76. Perception is reality. There are tons of threads on ARs and they don't get ugly. This one did and it had a lot to do with the way you asked the question and starting with false premises.

M&PVolk
March 30, 2009, 12:29 AM
Paladin Hammer wrote:I asked more than that. There has also been a whole three pages proceeding your post, go ahead a read a little of that.

I'm really starting to hate AR-15's based on the security issues some of you guys have... if owning one is going to turn me into a whiny, angry person because someone asks a few questions then maybe I'll just stick isolate myself from them . Which is a shame, guys like yesit'sloaded and HGNHTR have been nothing but cool and informative .

Actually, I read every post before replying and somewhat wish I had that 10 minutes of my life back...

None of us are insecure or whining about your questions, the problem is your question is disingenuous. You won't accept modularity, accuracy, varmint hunting, self-defense or target shooting as a legitimate reason to own one. You have already heard about SD uses and deer hunting uses and still continue to pontificate on how it is overpriced and what other options are better for those uses.

Your question is based on a flawed premise and you are repeating it only for some strange need to have other justify your opinion that an AR is a worthless civilian gun. If this were not the case, you would have been satisfied with the responses on page one alone.

BhmBill
March 30, 2009, 12:30 AM
I shot one and wasn't really impressed. I didn't like the feel, the noise, the cost of ammo, or the price of the gun. I've never once thought "i need one of those" or "that'd be a good buy". That's just my opinion.

But hey, I bought a Hi-point 9mm carbine and I love it. Some people like something, some people don't.

yesit'sloaded
March 30, 2009, 12:31 AM
Let me cut through the people acting like children and address each one of your concerns.

I know there are plenty of AR-15 fanatics here. But no matter how much I read about accuracy, customization, light-weight, size, and range, I can't figure out what on earth the AR-15 is GOOD for.

You can't hunt with a .223/5.56x45 in most states (I'm pretty sure its still Missouri and Kansas prohibited, and everywhere else... I think Tennessee reversed it's ban but I'm not sure). Seeing as hunting would be the primary use of any rifle if you are NOT Law-Enforcement or Military, then the AR-15 is out of the question here.

You're caught up on large game hunting. P-dogs, coyotes, rabbits, hogs, and other animals can be hunted even when large game can't. Not to mention many ARs are sold in .308 (a very nice deer and Elk caliber as it replicates the performance of the WW2 era 30-06) and .243 (.308 case necked down to .243, an excellent deer round and it can be loaded with light bullets for varmints).

I thought about target shooting. In this area AR-15's make sense, you can stand up and hit an inch group most AR-15's. But really, $800+ dollars to shoot paper all day long? Don't get me wrong, I go outside and plink with a .22lr pistol for hours on end, but when my family bought that .22 it was in the higher $100 dollar area, not $800.

ARs can be had for $600, and ammo used to be extremely inexpensive as rifle calibers go.

So then defense? .223 or military 5.56x45 will not just punch holes in intruders, it will go straight through them under 50 yards and punch a hole in your wall, in anyone behind that wall, and if it's short ranged enough it could continue into a neighbor's house. Unless you've got a 100 yard long home, I can't figure out how it's a safe defense weapon, and any more effective than say, a Remington 870?

Anything that can kill a human reliably will possibly pass through the body. You also are not guaranteed a hit with every round. Nevertheless this is a recognized issue and is the reason why excellent home defense rounds are made for .308 and .223, namely Hornady's TAP as well as other forms of frangible ammo.

I was also told that many AR-15 owners use them for shooting Coyote's. But in Missouri, where I've found plenty of AR-15 owners, there isn't exactly a whole lot of distance between you and any Coyote. Most hunting land is either wooded or has enough hills on it to limit ranges under 200 yards. So then, why the 400 yard pushing .223/5.56?

The same reason most deer are shot with guns loaded with calibers capable of 500+ yard shots.

Am I missing something here? Is there a sport or animal that the .223 takes down that's legal? I'm not saying their bad rifles,

I named them up top

anyone knows that a AR-15 is more than capable of hitting a golf-ball at 100 yards, weighing a mere 5 pounds, fitting in tight spaces, or using more accessories than the rifle itself is worth. But in terms of sheer utility, what's it's niche?

It is a light, easy to operate, reliable weapon that can be used on most game in most states in it's original caliber, and can be had in just about any caliber up to 50bmg. Calibers can be swapped as well by merely removing two pins and exchanging the upper receiver with one of a different caliber and switching magazines. It also serves as a great self defense firearm.

Titan6
March 30, 2009, 12:31 AM
I think Coal Dragger doesn't get this part of Chucks statement or never understood it to begin with. Therefore he is sniperbait with his "short tool".

Fred, what you said was :

3. Short barrels are inaccurate > 75 yards.

That is plain crazy talk.

Coal Dragger
March 30, 2009, 12:33 AM
Don't worry about me oldFRed, I have long barreled rifles too.

There is a difference between practical accuracy and mechanical accuracy. You still would be well served to look into modern ballistics, you might find out some disturbing things about smaller bullets with high ballistic coefficients.

Texpatriate
March 30, 2009, 12:36 AM
FYI, .223 is perfectly legal for deer in Missouri. I have several friends who use it as their primary deer round out of either their AR or their Mini-14 right here in the show me state. Aside from that, you can get AR patterned rifles in calibers other than just .223/5.56.

I myself just completed building one in 6.8 SPC for use as my primary woods deer rifle. I have .270 win and .308 bolt guns too which are great for beanfield type setups with 300-400 yard shots, but are terrible for walking through the woods and taking a deer that may be on the move. Hence, the 6.8 SPC AR that I built.

Besides, AR's are fun as all get out and they are the erector sets/legos of the firearm world. Just think about it, your buddy comes over to see your gun collection, sees your AR "Hey where'd you get that?!", response- "what, that old thing, I built it myself...." :cool:

benzy2
March 30, 2009, 12:37 AM
Paladin, in Ohio hunting with a centerfire of any size is illegal for deer. Do you see a reason for any bolt rifle in Ohio? They would be bad for SD, they can't be used to hunt, most all have too much range, and ammo is more expensive than .22lr. Under Ohio circumstances would you own any centerfire rifle? I'm really trying to understand what you are looking for in a rifle and wonder if there was any you found justifiable in Ohio. You can hunt other small game with centerfire rifles in Ohio but if .223 was too much for coyote, which is about the biggest thing we can hunt with centerfire, what would you use, both caliber and model?

yenchisks
March 30, 2009, 12:38 AM
Did you say your not going to buy a ar-15, OOOoo NOOO,what shall we do,...........HUMMMM I KNOW ,lets force feed him 5.56,untell he gets better;) moma always told me not to look into the eyes of the sun,BUT MOMA THATS WERE THE FUN IS

Ed Ames
March 30, 2009, 12:38 AM
You own three? Each with a purpose? Wow. I don't remember a time when I've owned three. Is that three rifles or three guns total?

I stand by my "not a gun person" diagnosis.

A few points:

Ultralights fly low and slow, and cannot legally be used commercially. They have virtually no military purpose. They are fun.

I am sure hunting is fun. It isn't a priority for me.

I do not shoot three gun or any other form of sport shooting. My shooting is recreational.

I don't think you understand what "means to an end" means.

And this:

Read up to page 1 for Godsake.
... That's what we've been talking about, welcome to page 4!

Not the sort of thing that will make you popular.

M&PVolk
March 30, 2009, 12:39 AM
oldFredI think Coal Dragger doesn't get this part of Chucks statement or never understood it to begin with. Therefore he is sniperbait with his "short tool".

Practical accuracy is how the shooter handles the weapon, not how inherently accurate the weapon is. These are very different concepts and are clearly not what was intended in your original post.

Since practical accuracy is a function of human skill, it can be improved on and compensated for. Physical or platform accuracy is a function of hardware and build quality and will not improve through use. The AR in all its barrel lengths is inherently physically accurate by nature of the platform itself.

By way of example, platform accuracy is exhibited by a 14" carbine AR and a full length bolt action being able to hit 1 MOA at 100 yards from a bench rest. Practical accuracy is why the little carbine drops that deer at 300 yards and you shoot low with your bolt and go home hungry. See the difference?

yesit'sloaded
March 30, 2009, 12:42 AM
Guys, it is bad enough that we have an administration and a large group of people that think our freedom to own arms for whatever purpose is not a valid freedom. Let us not make it worse by infighting and resorting to childish personal attacks. I'm not calling anyone out, I'm just requesting we learn from each other instead of stubbornly clinging to our own ideas which may or may not be correct.

oldFred
March 30, 2009, 12:43 AM
Don't worry about me oldFRed, I have long barreled rifles too.

There is a difference between practical accuracy and mechanical accuracy. You still would be well served to look into modern ballistics, you might find out some disturbing things about smaller bullets with high ballistic coefficients.


Oh I understand perfectly Coal Dragger, as my original replay stated IN MY OPINION and my set of rules.

Once again to make it quite simple IMO,
1. ARs jam frequently
2. Have short barrels that aren't good for anything beyond 75 yards.
3. It's a proven fact that soldiers DO NOT clean their weapons in combat, hence the failure of this design.
4. The ARMY was stupid to ever have rejected the gas piston design in the first place.
5. .22 caliber projectiles are worthless.
6. If YOU don't have your upper upgraded to a gas piston .308, then your AR is complete GARBAGE and you paid for JUNK!

Paladin_Hammer
March 30, 2009, 12:45 AM
Let me cut through the people acting like children and address each one of your concerns.


I know there are plenty of AR-15 fanatics here. But no matter how much I read about accuracy, customization, light-weight, size, and range, I can't figure out what on earth the AR-15 is GOOD for.

You can't hunt with a .223/5.56x45 in most states (I'm pretty sure its still Missouri and Kansas prohibited, and everywhere else... I think Tennessee reversed it's ban but I'm not sure). Seeing as hunting would be the primary use of any rifle if you are NOT Law-Enforcement or Military, then the AR-15 is out of the question here.

Your caught up on large game hunting. P-dogs, coyotes, rabbits, hogs, and other animals can be hunted even when large came can't. Not to mention many ARs are sold in .308 (a very nice deer and Elk caliber as it replicates the performance of the WW2 era 30-06) and .243 (.308 case necked down to .243, an excellent deer round and it can be loaded with light bullets for varmints).

I thought about target shooting. In this area AR-15's make sense, you can stand up and hit an inch group most AR-15's. But really, $800+ dollars to shoot paper all day long? Don't get me wrong, I go outside and plink with a .22lr pistol for hours on end, but when my family bought that .22 it was in the higher $100 dollar area, not $800.

ARs can be had for $600, and ammo used to be extremely inexpensive as rifle calibers go.

So then defense? .223 or military 5.56x45 will not just punch holes in intruders, it will go straight through them under 50 yards and punch a hole in your wall, in anyone behind that wall, and if it's short ranged enough it could continue into a neighbor's house. Unless you've got a 100 yard long home, I can't figure out how it's a safe defense weapon, and any more effective than say, a Remington 870?

Anything that can kill a human reliably will possibly pass through the body. You also are not guaranteed a hit with every round. Nevertheless this is a recognized issue and is the reason why excellent home defense rounds are made for .308 and .223, namely Hornady's TAP as well as other forms of frangible ammo.

I was also told that many AR-15 owners use them for shooting Coyote's. But in Missouri, where I've found plenty of AR-15 owners, there isn't exactly a whole lot of distance between you and any Coyote. Most hunting land is either wooded or has enough hills on it to limit ranges under 200 yards. So then, why the 400 yard pushing .223/5.56?

The same reason most deer are shot with guns loaded with calibers capable of 500+ yard shots.

Am I missing something here? Is there a sport or animal that the .223 takes down that's legal? I'm not saying their bad rifles,

I named them up top

anyone knows that a AR-15 is more than capable of hitting a golf-ball at 100 yards, weighing a mere 5 pounds, fitting in tight spaces, or using more accessories than the rifle itself is worth. But in terms of sheer utility, what's it's niche?

It is a light, easy to operate, reliable weapon that can be used on most game in most states in it's original caliber, and can be had in just about any caliber up to 50bmg. Calibers can be swapped as well by merely removing two pins and exchanging the upper receiver with one of a different caliber and switching magazines. It also serves as a great self defense firearm.

All I can say is THANK GOD for guys like yesit'sloaded. Sir having a moment of your time has been nothing but a pleasure and if your ever in need and in western Missouri you've got a friend in me! Your answers have been clear, concise, and thoughtful. If you lived within an hours drive I'd bring you a six pack of Guinness right now.

Titan6, X-Rap, and M&PVolk, you guys can go straight to hell! If it wasn't for yesit'sloaded, I'd swear off AR-15's right now as being the tools of arrogant, insecure ******* who need guns taken away from them if only to spare the rest of us the shame of being in the same boat as you!

M&PVolk, I even SAID they were accurate, and good for target shooting. I never said that the lack of hunting applications was a reason NOT TO OWN ONE. I said I couldn't see it as a hunting rifle which honest, good guys like yesit'sloaded kindly answered and gave an acceptable answer of the 5.56 just needs heavier bullets to be hunting legal/capable. I never didn't accept that answer! I've BEEN satisfied with those answers, the question of cost was ALSO answered by yesit'sloaded. I'm getting the idea he's the only source for AR-15 info I need, because the rest of you are so damn insecure with your preciousness you won't even give me the light of day!

Titan6, I never had false premises, this got ugly because ******* like you couldn't just answer a stupid question.

X-Rap, I hope to God someone supervises you when you use a firearm, someone with as little of mind and as little of tolerance for a few questions bring me to question the state of mind you must be in. Inebriated is all I can think of.

With few exceptions, reading the posts here have me convinced that we truly do live in a world of terror. People are so scared to answer questions here that I could just rip apart a two by four with my bare hands!

You own three? Each with a purpose? Wow. I don't remember a time when I've owned three. Is that three rifles or three guns total?

I stand by my "not a gun person" diagnosis.

A few points:

Ultralights fly low and slow, and cannot legally be used commercially. They have virtually no military purpose. They are fun.

I am sure hunting is fun. It isn't a priority for me.

I do not shoot three gun or any other form of sport shooting. My shooting is recreational.

I don't think you understand what "means to an end" means.

And this:

Quote:
Read up to page 1 for Godsake.
... That's what we've been talking about, welcome to page 4!
Not the sort of thing that will make you popular.


I apologize for the sarcasm and ass comment Ed. I'm just getting so frustrated trying to TALK to some of these guys that I could just rip something apart!

I've got a Marlin 30-30, Deer Rifle. Remington 870, Duck and Skeet. .22lr revolver, plastic bottles. I didn't say guns couldn't be used for recreation, its what my revolvers for. But I didn't understand the AR-15 for anything else other than an expensive plinker. yesit'sloaded and HGUNHTR have changed that perception. I thank them for it. And I apologize to you. But not to M&P, X-Rap, and Titan6, they're nonsense is slowly costing me my sanity.

Paladin, in Ohio hunting with a centerfire of any size is illegal for deer. Do you see a reason for any bolt rifle in Ohio? They would be bad for SD, they can't be used to hunt, most all have too much range, and ammo is more expensive than .22lr. Under Ohio circumstances would you own any centerfire rifle? I'm really trying to understand what you are looking for in a rifle and wonder if there was any you found justifiable in Ohio. You can hunt other small game with centerfire rifles in Ohio but if .223 was too much for coyote, which is about the biggest thing we can hunt with centerfire, what would you use, both caliber and model?

The heck? I know for a fact you guys do have range much greater than 100 yards in Ohio. Why did they outlaw use of centerfires? I've not seen a slug shotgun go more than 50 myself (I'm not entirely sure what ranges a 12 gauge slug stops being good at though). They would be bad for SD, for only in the rare occasion has anyone I know seen a 50 yard and under shot there. Even then, it could have easily been 200 yards if they walked in from another direction.

Rifles to me have a niche. The AR-15 fills plenty (thanks to certain members of the board, no thanks to other members who just wanted to piss me off, you know who you are). My 30-30 is for forest and brush. A .270 is for 300-500 yards of open field. A .308 is for... anything not inside a tank. A 30-06 see: .308 (they're almost the same thing). A .223 isn't to much for coyote, I was only making a comment on how in Missouri there are rarely shots greater than a hundred yards or so for a .223. I wasn't saying they couldn't be used, only that other alternatives seemed better. Note: seemed. Thank you you know who you are.

H2O MAN
March 30, 2009, 12:45 AM
http://www.sportsinferno.com/forums/images/smilies/popcorn.gif

Riveting!

M&PVolk
March 30, 2009, 12:47 AM
Guys, it is bad enough that we have an administration and a large group of people that think our freedom to own arms for whatever purpose is not a valid freedom. Let us not make it worse by infighting and resorting to childish personal attacks. I'm not calling anyone out, I'm just requesting we learn from each other instead of stubbornly clinging to our own ideas which may or may not be correct.
__________________

Perhaps that is why threads like this are so irritating. Gun owners are weary of having to justify what we own and why despite the 2nd Amendment putting no restrictions on such things. In fact, if we were to be true to the 2nd Amendment intent, military styled weapons would be the most desirable, not the weapons that need to be justified.

Duke of Doubt
March 30, 2009, 12:48 AM
As I mentioned above and elsewhere, I purchased my AR without much passion; it was purely a professional decision, made for economic reasons which I find amusing but sometimes fun to relate. Plus I also figured it for a good investment, which it has been.

It has some nice points, as I related above, and it's pretty well made, but I've never cared for them much as enthusiast guns and I still don't. That plastic butt just doesn't do it for me at all, not when I'm used to steel buttplates on hardwood stocks. If it's plastic it should fold aside like the AK's. The plastic forend looks like it's ready to split apart like a red tide clam. And the M9 bayonet is so huge and robust, and the rifle so small and fragile-looking, that it resembles nothing so much as scrawny young D'Artagnan trying to duel the Musketeers with his father's unwieldy Lepanto longsword. Can't even sheath the bayonet on the rifle as you can with many other designs. And the standard round's effective range is a little on the short side.

Yet I don't hate the rifle. Our military chooses to keep it for many reasons, most salient the fact that after several and periodic replacement trials, the improvements offered by other, newer designs honestly are marginal and could never justify the replacement cost.

I do not find AR users to be "fanboys" like the Glock users or insecure tightwads like the Taurus users. They often aren't into my preferred enthusiast guns, but I acknowledge that their preferred gun isn't objectively bad at all, and has its good points. They'll generally acknowledge the same of my preferred guns, though they tend to be ignorant of them and can sometimes be subtly condescending (until I shoot rings around their M4gery with my SAR-1 or Romanian SKS).

In short, plenty of reasons to have an AR, including the fact that for now at least, it is accepted more than most rifles as a "professional/paramilitary" arm by the general, paying public.

Texpatriate
March 30, 2009, 12:49 AM
oldFred,
No offense, but I fear that you are about to get added to a bunch of people's "ignore list" unless you change the attitude of your posts. I want to respect your views and experience, but you're making it very difficult with the spirit in which they are offered. This site is called "The High Road" for a reason.

Titan6
March 30, 2009, 12:49 AM
Titan6, I never had false premises, this got ugly because ******* like you couldn't just answer a stupid question.

All of your questions have been answered. Ad Nauseum.

Titan6, X-Rap, and M&PVolk, you guys can go straight to hell! If it wasn't for yesit'sloaded, I'd swear off AR-15's right now as being the tools of arrogant, insecure ******* who need guns taken away from them if only to spare the rest of us the shame of being in the same boat as you!

Name calling and rudeness as you have repeatedly done is not high road. I am going to take the unusual step of adding you to my ignore list as you can not hold down a conversation without being rude and potty mouth, goodbye.

yesit'sloaded
March 30, 2009, 12:50 AM
It was my pleasure to be of service. It was my hope that this website will continue to be a place for the uninformed to gather information as well as the "old-timers" to discuss the fun times we have in the shooting sports and disciplines.

X-Rap
March 30, 2009, 12:51 AM
I called PH out in my 1st post. His statements were anti gun and inflammatory and just the opposite of what a pro gun forum should be. If he wanted to bring up reliability or base his point on a reserched issues regarding the legalities and ethics of the AR as a big game rifle that is one thing. Go back and read the OP and tell me it isn't right out of the antis talking points.

WardenWolf
March 30, 2009, 12:52 AM
And reported. Congrats on killing an informative thread, all responsible (you know who you are).

yesit'sloaded
March 30, 2009, 12:53 AM
Everyone was an anti or indifferent at some point of their lives. This website was founded by a liberal that decided he needed to arm himself one day.

HB
March 30, 2009, 12:53 AM
Oh I understand perfectly Coal Dragger, as my original replay stated IN MY OPINION and my set of rules.

Once again to make it quite simple IMO,
1. ARs jam frequently
2. Have short barrels that aren't good for anything beyond 75 yards.
3. It's a proven fact that soldiers DO NOT clean their weapons in combat, hence the failure of this design.
4. The ARMY was stupid to ever have rejected the gas piston design in the first place.
5. .22 caliber projectiles are worthless.
6. If YOU don't have your upper upgraded to a gas piston .308, then your AR is complete GARBAGE and you paid for JUNK!

Hang on, April Fools day isn't for another couple days.

oldFred
March 30, 2009, 12:53 AM
oldFred,
No offense, but I fear that you are about to get added to a bunch of people's "ignore list" unless you change the attitude of your posts. I want to respect your views and experience, but you're making it very difficult with the spirit in which they are offered. This site is called "The High Road" for a reason.

So it's ok for people here to call me "stupid", and an "idiot" but I can't call a AR a piece of junk??

I have not insulted anyone here, only the Ed Stoner design.

What started me off tonight was a Taurus bashing thread. Forgive if I bash the AR platform, I simply hate it more than some of you do Taurus...

Coal Dragger
March 30, 2009, 12:56 AM
Well oldFred,

1.) The AR's that I own and have had issued to me were generally pretty reliable except with blanks which are the bane of my existence.

2.) I have short barrels on rifles and pistols that are plenty effective and accurate beyond 75 yards. Perhaps you should practice more, to me 75 yards is practical pistol or revolver range with iron sights. Hell my Kimber Super Match has a long enough sight radius to made hits out to 100yds once I determine the hold.

3.) Maybe you don't clean your weapons, that is your mistake. I made it a point to clean mine when I had a chance when I was in Iraq, and that included not just the M16 but all of the belt fed stuff we had too. Sand is a bitch, so you better clean weapons when you get a chance. You don't eat, you don't sleep, you don't take a piss until your weapon is clean, I don't care if all it is is a sharp pointy stick. With all that said an AR will run a lot dirtier than you might expect.

4.) The Army is stupid, but as a former Marine I am expected to take that position. Ha ha ha. I am not a big fan of direct gas systems either, but they are not as bad as you think they are. Especially with quality ammo. Given a choice I would likely go with a piston driven autoloader too.

5.) .224 caliber projectiles are not completely worthless, I have seen then work just fine on tissue and bone both animal and human. Would I prefer a larger caliber? Sure a 6mm or 6.5mm would have been better in my opinion, especially if we are limiting ourselves to FMJ projectiles.

6.) A gas piston AR10 in .308 would be nice, I'll have to get one one of these days. I'll still keep a 5.56mm though, I just have no intention of running ball ammo for any serious business when so many better projectiles exist.

M&PVolk
March 30, 2009, 12:58 AM
Paladin Hammer wrote:Titan6, X-Rap, and M&PVolk, you guys can go straight to hell! If it wasn't for yesit'sloaded, I'd swear off AR-15's right now as being the tools of arrogant, insecure ******* who need guns taken away from them if only to spare the rest of us the shame of being in the same boat as you!


How amazingly tolerant of you! I can see how someone as level headed and tolerant of others is perfectly suited to firearm ownership and the rest of us are not. I simply pointed out that your original premise was flawed when asking the original question, and that was too much for you!

If I had said, "I like the AR because I like the way it looks on my mantle", what would your reaction have been? The fact of the matter is, if that's what I wanted an AR for, it would serve every bit as useful a purpose to me hanging on my wall as your bolt action lever does for you out in the field.

The original question was asked in a baiting manner, and you received answers meaded out accordingly.

RugerOldArmy
March 30, 2009, 12:58 AM
A lotta closed minds here.

AR(s) have a lot of utility:

- Defense: If the fact that the US Military uses them doesn't impress you, consider that the Russians were impressed enough with 5.56 to chamber AK-74s with a similar cartridge.

- Competition: Ever go to a Highpower competition? AR(s) are ubiquitious.

- Hunting: Nothing is more devastating to a prarie dog colony than a hunter with an AR chambered in .223 or .204

Go shoot one. They're cool gizmos, almost endlessly modifiable. Accurate, modular, semi-auto, and fun.

Did I really see someone question cost for paper punching? lol! Compare a Highpower AR ($800-$1500) to a Benchrest gun ($2k to beyond 5K$)

BTW, shorter barrels are inherently more accurate, for a given diameter. (Think about how a short and long piece of PVC would flex with a given force and which would vary more from the axis.) Read about harmonics and accuracy nodes. Listen to Tony Boyer or Bill Shehane, not Zumbo or Chuck Hawkes ;) Some of this is covered by this link: http://www.6mmbr.citymaker.com/barrelFAQ.html Links about barrel harmonics and the impact on loads: Barrel Harmonics and their effect on load development (http://www.washtenawsportsmansclub.org/groups/cba/downloads/incredload.pdf)

bhk
March 30, 2009, 01:04 AM
The AR 15 is perfectly legal in Missouri for hunting. The only restriction is that you can't use over a 10 round magazine for deer hunting. No limit for coyotes or other creatures. If you live in this state, it is your obligation to at least know our game laws.

oldFred
March 30, 2009, 01:06 AM
RugerOldArmy,

I was going to buy a Ruger Mini-14 till I read about it's horrible inaccuracy beyond 100 yards. Must be that 16" barrel. :neener:

Coal Dragger,

Much respect on your last post. Thanks!

Brian Dale
March 30, 2009, 01:08 AM
It's one of the rifles that's allowed for Service Rifle competition, and it shoots like a laser beam.

Fun to shoot, too...and its low recoil is nice for new shooters, shooters of slight physical build, and me!

Coal Dragger
March 30, 2009, 01:09 AM
Sorry about the name calling Fred, just got a little fired up there.

Paladin_Hammer
March 30, 2009, 01:11 AM
I called PH out in my 1st post. His statements were anti gun and inflammatory and just the opposite of what a pro gun forum should be. If he wanted to bring up reliability or base his point on a reserched issues regarding the legalities and ethics of the AR as a big game rifle that is one thing. Go back and read the OP and tell me it isn't right out of the antis talking points.

If that isn't the most paranoid, closed-minded statement of the night...

This thread WAS FOR RESEARCH X-Rap. Thanks for destroying it and driving me mad.

How amazingly tolerant of you! I can see how someone as level headed and tolerant of others is perfectly suited to firearm ownership and the rest of us are not. I simply pointed out that your original premise was flawed when asking the original question, and that was too much for you!

If I had said, "I like the AR because I like the way it looks on my mantle", what would your reaction have been? The fact of the matter is, if that's what I wanted an AR for, it would serve every bit as useful a purpose to me hanging on my wall as your bolt action lever does for you out in the field.

The original question was asked in a baiting manner, and you received answers meaded out accordingly.

I can see how arrogant you are. In fact, we all can. Your original post didn't do anything more than make me mad and you know it! I ask a question, and I get lip from you. That's not tolerant, that's arrogance.

I've reacted favorably to people's answers about their AR's, when they actually offer one! You haven't actually offered one, you've just been condescending and a burden on my simple inquiry about the abilities of an AR-15.

If you think I was baiting someone, then you've bitten at a hook that wasn't there. You've taken a ghost, hook line and sinker.

Titan6, I've got an idea. Why don't you be nice to others and maybe they'll treat you in kind? That's worked for me and everyone else for a long time. Try it, I'll return in.

I'm adding RugerOldArmy to my list with yesit'sloaded and HGUNHTR. Good info, manners, and they actually tried to inform me instead of telling me to piss off. That's three AR-15 owners trying to redeem three others. I'm up to half-and-half on the AR-15 community friendliness. One more good one and I'm with them.

RugerOldArmy
March 30, 2009, 01:13 AM
Once again to make it quite simple IMO,
1. ARs jam frequently
2. Have short barrels that aren't good for anything beyond 75 yards.
3. It's a proven fact that soldiers DO NOT clean their weapons in combat, hence the failure of this design.
4. The ARMY was stupid to ever have rejected the gas piston design in the first place.
5. .22 caliber projectiles are worthless.
6. If YOU don't have your upper upgraded to a gas piston .308, then your AR is complete GARBAGE and you paid for JUNK!

Note the thread, in this very forum, where actual servicemen pretty much refute this internet expertise myth:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=432922

You can find more information on AR15.com

Of course, you need to objectively reconsider things. At one time, the sun was commonly thought to revolve around the earth.

Gas pistons you can make a theoretical case for. More from an engineering perspective, than from a practical perspective, or a cost-effective perspective.

black_powder_Rob
March 30, 2009, 01:15 AM
"Justifying what I want to anybody is reason enough to have it. You might as well start questioners about if the cars people drive have to much HP or go to fast, maybe the size of their boat or if they should have one at all. Maybe your house has to many sq ft. Yea somebody on a gun forum asking why somebody needs a specific type or caliber and questioning the validity of its utility is over the top IMHO."

I second this, even though i don't have an AR and don't want one. People get what they like.

Paladin_Hammer
March 30, 2009, 01:17 AM
RugerOldArmy, earlier I asked about Bushmasters and failures to eject. You hear anything about this or is that just something that happens once in a blue moon? You seem like the kind of guy who'd know.

AND NO, I'M NOT SAYING AR-15'S CAN'T BE RELIABLE. I DIDN'T BRING THIS UP BECAUSE WITH PROPER MAINTENANCE THEY RUN FINE. I've got a friend in the Air-Force who wouldn't complain about his M-16A4's reliability when pressed by his Vietnam-vet father. Those who were going to jump on me like bubble wrap you know who you are.

oldFred
March 30, 2009, 01:19 AM
Here in Ohio no centerfire is legal for deer.

:confused:

Benzy2, what do you use .22s? and Bows and Arrows? :rolleyes:

M&PVolk
March 30, 2009, 01:20 AM
I never once personally attacked you. I never once degraded you. I simply called into question the wording and possible motive behind the original and follow up posts. For that, I get eternal condemnation, and I am the one who is arrogant?

If your intent was "research", then clarify your statement when it is called into question! Getting angry and condemning me to hell is not a rational response.

I could give you reasons why the AR is an excellent rifle and worthy of its cost all day long. I could give you a full list of its deficiencies as well. I will not play games with someone, though. I called your post as I saw it and got personally attacked instead of making an attempt at clarification.

TexasRifleman
March 30, 2009, 01:20 AM
Benzy2, what do you use .22s? and Bows and Arrows?

They are required to hunt deer with shotgun slugs, handguns, or blackpowder only in Ohio (firearms that is)

Coal Dragger
March 30, 2009, 01:23 AM
^ Well that and bows and arrows.

M&PVolk
March 30, 2009, 01:25 AM
oldFred wrote:Benzy2, what do you use .22s? and Bows and Arrows?

My guess is they are limited to shotguns or bows, a sad thing for hunters used to being able to select amongst a wider variety of firearms.

Brian Dale
March 30, 2009, 01:25 AM
Folks, let's use TexasRifleman in Post #135 as an example of how good we look when we post a straight answer to a question, in simple, declarative sentences.

You all know better than to post some of the stuff that I just read on my screen.

If your Muse insists that you communicate hostile, argumentative, unflattering comments for someone else's edification, please let me remind you of THR's lovely Personal Messaging feature.

yesit'sloaded
March 30, 2009, 01:26 AM
The AR platform is cycled by a direct impingement of gas from the gas tube pushing on the bolt group and forcing it back against the recoil spring located in the stock (which is why ARs can't have a folding stock without being converted to a piston gun). To fail to cycle the bolt might not get enough gas from an underpowered round, get caught up on something such as a bad mag malfunction, or be so dirty as to not function properly. To fail to eject the ejector could be broken, the extractor could be broken ( it is a wearable part and should be replaced every few thousand rounds), or something else. The remedy to this is what the military (Army ROTC at least) calls SPORTS.

Slap the magazine to ensure it is seated.
Pull the charging handle to the rear.
Observe the chamber for ejection of the defective or jammed round.
Release the charging handle.
Tap the forward assist.
Squeeze the trigger.

Anything not fixed by this is serious and requires more remedial action and a possible field strip of the weapon.

X-Rap
March 30, 2009, 01:27 AM
I'm just guessing but I think PH is up a little past his bedtime after reading a little more of his history.
The internet is a wonderful forum for youngsters who in real life would likely be back handed and sent to their rooms if they spoke with such brash insolence.
I will not put you on an ignore list PH, I imagine you will be some commic relief for the future doldrums ahead.

oldFred
March 30, 2009, 01:27 AM
Thank you TexasRifleman, for not calling me stupid. I was so close to tears. ;)

Paladin_Hammer
March 30, 2009, 01:29 AM
X-Rap, your in no position talk discuss someone's maturity. Or are you going to call me a IVAN again? Or maybe claim I called you a fascist? Or maybe you'll try and deny other the pleasure of asking questions to a wide audience by wasting their and others time by continuing to post in a thread where you have done NO GOOD for ANYONE involved?

Go to bed X-Rap. When you wake up in the morning maybe you'll be more humane to others, or maybe you'll figure out that I'm no anti-gun nut, I'm just a guy asking questions. I got them from good people, of which you aren't.

TexasRifleman
March 30, 2009, 01:30 AM
Thank you TexasRifleman, for not calling me stupid. I was so close to tears.

I learned this the hard way when I was once invited to hunt with friends outside of Columbus and I showed up with my very nice .30-06 rifle......

Paladin_Hammer
March 30, 2009, 01:32 AM
Thank you TexasRifleman, for not calling me stupid. I was so close to tears.

Posting here seems to have that effect on people. Or in some cases frustrate them until they lose it.

Zak Smith
March 30, 2009, 01:33 AM
Enough

If you enjoyed reading about "What's so great about AR-15's anyway?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!