Why an AR over a good bolt gun?


PDA






wickedsprint
May 28, 2009, 07:31 AM
Besides the cool factor, why the craziness over ARs? Don't get me wrong, they're fun as heck to shoot..but the prices have gotten silly.

A good bolt-action rifle with irons or a scope with few exceptions will be more accurate.

A good bolt-action will be more reliable, and at the moment probably half the price.

A bolt-action rifle does not seem to need much, if any in the way of spare parts for its entire life.

For these advantages you'll be giving up extra capacity and the ability to dispatch multiple threats running at you at once. You'll also be giving up the ability to easily switch uppers for a caliber swap..but that is not a big selling point since uppers cost as much as a bolt-action rifle.


If ARs were this spendy and hard to find when I got mine, I would not have bothered.

So why the continued AR craze in light of recent prices and availability issues?

If you enjoyed reading about "Why an AR over a good bolt gun?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
shaggy430
May 28, 2009, 07:34 AM
Amen.

Floppy_D
May 28, 2009, 07:38 AM
The answer is a Vinn diagram. If you write down all of the reasons people buy AR's in one circle, and all of the reasons people buy bolt guns in another circle, they'll overrlap, but only partially. I'll take both, thanks. :)

wickedsprint
May 28, 2009, 07:40 AM
If people were being honest with the reasons, they should overlap more than partially, more like mostly.

ParaElite
May 28, 2009, 08:17 AM
ARs have a better resale value. Bolt action rifles take longer to sell than ARs.
Given the right barrels and triggers, ARs can be just as accurate as a Bolt gun unless you are talking about the gilt edge accuracy of the Bench Rest shooting fraternity's bolt action rifles.
Have you seen the price of bolt action rifles lately? Check the prices on Remington rifles.
ARs are semi-automatic which gives them a huge advantage in shooting competitions like 3 gun and the National Matches at Camp Perry where you get to shoot rapid fire sequences. Bolt actions are no match here (pun intended).
I could go on.

RugerOldArmy
May 28, 2009, 08:46 AM
So why the continued AR craze in light of recent prices and availability issues?

Come now, you know the answer goes beyond accuracy and semi-auto capability.

Ironic, isn't it? Sales of AR's go through the roof when a liberal democrat is elected. Yet it makes sense: Folks want to get an AR before any 2nd amendment ignoring Clinton-esque ban on semi-autos is passed by a far left congress, and signed by a presidental democrat from Daley-led Illinois.

I'd go so far as to say that the shortage of factory ammo and reloading components, as well as the booming gun sales, are the results of the election. The sheeple have elected this president for this ambiguous 'change', he promised, yet fear the change is infringement on their Second Amendment rights.

kcmarine
May 28, 2009, 08:58 AM
1. Semi- automatic
2. Lighter recoil (depending on what caliber the bolt action is)
3. More ammunition choices in one platform
4. Semi- automatic
5. Parts out the wazoo to make the rifle yours
6. Newer idea... bolt actions lost their sheen years ago
7. It's black
8. Semi- automatic
9. Actually, a lot of gun for what you pay...
10. The military uses it
11. The average new Model 700 isn't that much less expensive than the average new AR-15.
12. Semi- automatic
13. Politically incorrect. Whatever is disdained by the anti's the most likely to be embraced by the likes of us. A lot of anti's say they "don't have a problem with hunting rifles". Well, up theirs. We'll get what they DON'T like.
14. And so on and so forth.

jdh
May 28, 2009, 09:02 AM
I'll be willing to bet you that if I rebuilt my prairie dog rifle today it would cost as much or more than an AR of equal accuracy.

Just to buy a Remington action from brownells or midway is $350. Barrel blank $400. Semi-finished stock $200. Good trigger $200. Right there is the price of an AR. Now add in the labor to but it all togeather correctly.

So far I have just under $750 in parts and have a shootable AR HBAR that I put togeather without paying gobs of maney to a gunsmith for machine work.

Kindrox
May 28, 2009, 09:10 AM
What KC said. Your question though seem more about semi-auto than bolt versus ar15 since I think most any rifle with ar15 similarities has probably seen the same price inflation.

The AR15 base price must be rooted in reality, since there is a lot of compitition in the space and prices of a good basic ar15 have never really dropped below $800 or so since I have been a shooter.

The price inflation is demand brought on by fears of a ban.

But why the ar15? The ar15 is America's rifle.

Arbor
May 28, 2009, 09:35 AM
You can fire it thirty times in a row instead of one. There's nothing about that I don't like.

RugerOldArmy
May 28, 2009, 09:39 AM
Parts out the wazoo to make the rifle yours

There's a lot of truth in that too. AR(s) are the Harley-Davidson of rifles. There is a HUGE array of parts to customize your AR. There are a lot for a Rem 700 too, but the availability of options for an AR drawfs that of the 700.

TexasRifleman
May 28, 2009, 09:44 AM
So why the continued AR craze in light of recent prices and availability issues?

Take away the political stuff and there are still plenty of valid reasons.

I saw a post earlier this week from a guy who put his first AR together for $600-700. That's not bad at all.

As for bolt guns being "more accurate" there comes a time to ask, so what? For most purposes a 2MOA gun is sufficient. You can hunt, protect yourself, and have a great time at a 100 yard range with a 2-3 MOA gun. Accurate is "better" exactly how? For real life use does it matter? More fun maybe, but more useful? I don't see it.

Spare parts? Oh I dunno. Most shooters don't shoot AR's or any gun enough to wear things out. Heck, I have an old Bushmaster with several thousand rounds through it that's never needed a spare part. And really, a spare kit is a few bucks and a ziploc bag anyway.

Even removing the tacticool and political stuff I can still see plenty of reasons to consider the AR or other mag fed semi over a bolt action.

Not to take away from bolt actions, certainly have their place just like anything else, but for what most people use rifles for I can't see any advantage the bolt has.

ny32182
May 28, 2009, 09:45 AM
The AR15 is probably the most widespread semi-auto rifle in the USA and has been used by the military for what, 50 years now? Why would anyone not want one?

I don't really get the original premise of the question. If you want a semi-auto, get a semi auto. If you want a bolt gun, then get one. They are two entirely different designs. I'm sure I'm not the only one who owns both. Occassionally their use case may overlap (small game hunting?) but overall I'd say that is not the rule, but the exception.

Arbor
May 28, 2009, 09:49 AM
My $919 Stag Arms AR is capable of shooting right about 1" at 100, which is definitely bolt gun territory and actually better than most of them.

With cheap ammo.

RockyMtnTactical
May 28, 2009, 09:55 AM
This is kind of a silly question.

JShirley
May 28, 2009, 10:30 AM
A Venn diagram is a terrific idea.

It all depends on your priorities. I think a sturdy bolt-action somewhere in the 7.62x39mm to 7mm Remington Magnum range is a terrific choice for many things. One of the best things about such a rifle is familiarity. If you're used to carrying such a rifle through the woods for a few weeks every year looking for big game, it may be perfect for even your proposed defensive needs.

If I want a "do everything" rifle, I'll grab my 1903 or 1917. If the Khoikhoi are over-running my boma, I'll take a high-capacity autoloading carbine or rifle, thank you.

J

wickedsprint
May 28, 2009, 11:07 AM
This is kind of a silly question.

I expect nothing less than this response based on your screen name :)


As far as the prices for a bolt gun, compare the cheapest Remington 700 to the cheapest AR..the 700 is going to be significantly cheaper.

I'm merely asking why people keep buying them when their prices have sky rocketed...considering a Bolt-action will be more practical for most people, even in the civil unrest situations they fantasize about :)

So it seems the real answer is not one of practicality, it's simply desire, which is perfectly acceptable. For the record I also have both...but I certainly don't like it enough to pay today's prices.

Still Too Many Choices!?
May 28, 2009, 11:09 AM
Simple enough to answer,ROF - rate of fire...

taliv
May 28, 2009, 11:14 AM
a bolt action isn't more practical. that's an absurd statement.

people are buying them because they think the prices will go even higher. it's no different than asking why some people are still buying gold over $900/oz. they think it's going higher. duh.

or, maybe they are just willing to pay for the FUNCTIONALITY you can't get from a bolt.

fwiw, I haven't paid extra for the ARs I've purchased since the election.

xbox360
May 28, 2009, 11:25 AM
go get an enfield,mosin nagant,german mauser kar98k

any one of those is so much fun to shoot [bolt action :D]

wickedsprint
May 28, 2009, 11:33 AM
a bolt action isn't more practical. that's an absurd statement.

So outside of wars and LEO use, how exactly is an AR15 more practical?

ArmedBear
May 28, 2009, 11:34 AM
Because an AR is a toy that appeals to the videogame generation, and to people like me just because I can...

I don't actually USE the things very often any more due to ammo costs. (Okay, my .22LR upper gets some rounds through it!)

For reloading and accuracy-per-dollar, I'll take a good bolt, thank you.

If you handload your ammo carefully, and know enough about guns to care about your barrel, the appeal of spraying a few hundred rounds in a few minutes fades rapidly, at least once you've "gotten it out of your system" as Mom used to say...

A bolt gun is actually more "practical" in a lot of ways. Which one has actually brought home dinner more? Bolt action sporters, or ARs?

WRT sales, remember, most ARs sold in the past 6 months probably haven't been sold to people like those who hang out here and shoot at targets a few hundred yards out.

Go to a range, and you'll see the broken target frames at 25 yards, the yahoo behavior, etc., and you'll see two things: a lot of people can't shoot worth CRAP, and there's a REASON that experienced shooters are sometimes not excited when someone shows up with an AR (until he/she proves to be a competent, safe shooter anyway). The slang term for the things that I've heard? "Noisemakers."

So it's a mixed bag.

Nothing against the AR platform. However, if you think that everyone buying one since Obama got elected can keep 10 rounds on paper at 100 yards, or knows the difference between rifle shooting and noisemaking, you need to get out more.:)

taliv
May 28, 2009, 11:39 AM
as has been stated repeatedly

it has a higher rate of fire
you don't have to move your hands or head between shots
it is lighter than most bolt guns
it is more maneuverable
it has less recoil than most bolt guns
it has more capacity
it is shorter and easier to carry
it is modular and easily adaptable to almost any use


you have yet to offer any support for why a bolt gun is more practical. it sounds like you're just whining about the price of AR15s.

taliv
May 28, 2009, 11:43 AM
AB, i agree with most of your posts, but anyone who has ever shown up to a public range the month before deer season knows that the vast majority of bolt-gun shooters can't even hit a paper plate at 25 yards.

i don't see much truth behind any sort of claim that AR shooters as a group are less safe or accurate

ArmedBear
May 28, 2009, 11:54 AM
AB, i agree with most of your posts, but anyone who has ever shown up to a public range the month before deer season knows that the vast majority of bolt-gun shooters can't even hit a paper plate at 25 yards.


That's also true.

My point was not that AR shooters as a group as less safe or accurate, though many think so, and with good reason. (Comment to me after someone saw my target: "Well, you're someone with one of those things who can actually shoot it. That's a good thing!") Maybe where you shoot, everyone is a competitive shooter and has an AR. That's not my world, nor the world many of us live in.:) And if there's no kernel of truth to this, why do you find the immediate need to respond defensively?

My point was this:

1. Most people who are buying ARs like hotcakes right now are not buying them because they're practical. They certainly haven't carefully compared ARs with bolt guns and made a thoughtful choice. Maybe they'd all choose ARs if they did, but that's not my point.

2. If only serious competitive shooters in the US would be buying the ARs, the only company selling them would still be Colt, with some cottage-industry custom 'smiths on the side. There wouldn't be enough business to support what we see today.

3. You can see it right now at the range, just like you can before deer season with bolt guns, lever guns, whatever.

So, trying to figure out why people are buying ARs like they are right now by assuming that they're making educated, rational decisions about high-end firearms won't work. That's not what's happening.:)

TexasRifleman
May 28, 2009, 11:58 AM
So outside of wars and LEO use, how exactly is an AR15 more practical?

No one said an AR is MORE practical but you sure can't argue that it's any LESS practical.

ArmedBear
May 28, 2009, 12:00 PM
No one said an AR is MORE practical but you sure can't argue that it's any LESS practical.


The thought has crossed my mind when I've gotten a stuck case...

However, the additional functionality of a semiauto can't be expected to come without extra maintenance.

RP88
May 28, 2009, 12:01 PM
A good bolt-action rifle with irons or a scope with few exceptions will be more accurate.

A good AR can shoot on the same level with a good deal of the bolt guns out there that aren't used for super-long range shooting. Most ARs are capable of 1-1.5" MoA.

A good bolt-action will be more reliable, and at the moment probably half the price.

Although you're right on price, an AR is a reliable platform. People underestimate its reliability a bit too much. Sure, it isn't going to be inherently reliable due to it being a semi-auto, but with proper maintenance it'll work forever. I have personally only had one jam with my new AR out of about 250 rounds down it so far, and it was from a bad round out of a lot of sub-par ammo (I hate Wolf ammo)

A bolt-action rifle does not seem to need much, if any in the way of spare parts for its entire life.

This may be true, but it isn't like you'll be replacing parts on an AR that cost hundreds of dollars. Even if you shoot the crap out of your AR, the only things that will really wear out are your mags and the extractor, but that's really it. Both are simple fixes.

For these advantages you'll be giving up extra capacity and the ability to dispatch multiple threats running at you at once. You'll also be giving up the ability to easily switch uppers for a caliber swap..but that is not a big selling point since uppers cost as much as a bolt-action rifle.

I also don't have to manually re-chamber my gun for the next shot, meaning I can focus on my target much more consistently. I also feel less recoil.

WNTFW
May 28, 2009, 12:06 PM
Sniper has bolt gun.
Spotter has AR.
Best of both worlds.

With an AR I can easily have 90 rounds on me as I normaly dress. More rounds would not be hard to accomplish with a bag that has a strap. This is a trunk gun scenario.

My bolt gun is more accurate due to the optics/bipod and some other issues. It is also heavier etc. The .308 AR's kind of blend the 2.

I like both & would have a hard time choosing if I had to have only the other. That is not even throwing M1 Garand, M1A or M1 carbine into the mix.

I have been shooting bolt guns lately - but that just happens to be what I'm trying to optimize.

SHvar
May 28, 2009, 12:11 PM
Actually I only agree with armed bear on that responce concerning a percentage of those who buy the AR. Most younger people I know are looking to buy a house first, then look for an AR. Most of the video gamers dont do anything but video games, and dont have ARs, or an interest in them, in fact some are antigun.
As far as putting 10 rds on paper, heres a target from last Sunday, I had 1.5 hours before a cookout so I drove to the club I belong to. Keep in mind I havent shot much in a while, but this was 3 mags loaded 20 rds each, shot in 4 minutes including mag changes, relaxing etc. This was at 100 yds with a Bushnell T-dot reticle scope with no magnification what so ever. Keep in mind for those who think that ammo effects how you shoot drastically, this was all Barnaul Brown bear.
60 rounds 100 yards, One minute of camel. DPMS lopro classic with MOE stock, M73 quadrails, 110 lumen flashlight, hogue grip, and Bushnell MP scope T-dot reticle.
http://i193.photobucket.com/albums/z281/SHvar/Picture021-1.jpg

ArmedBear
May 28, 2009, 12:19 PM
"The videogame generation" is not some deep insult. It also doesn't imply that everyone is a gamer.

If you look at what guns people were all hot to buy in the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, etc., you will see correlations with popular culture.

Safari rifles, .44 Magnum revolvers, Jungle Carbines, Winchester lever actions, whatever you can name over the years. Many have been popular because enough people thought they were "neat" at a given time, due to movies, magazines, and the like.

This is not WRONG or anything. Never said it was.

My point was just that I've seen a lot of black rifle buyers who didn't make some informed, rational decision about functionality, based on extensive experience with firearms.

When I got back into shooting, the first thing I bought was a stainless Mini-14 Ranch Rifle. The more I shot, the less I liked it, and the more I got interested in other guns, like bolt-actions. One of these days, I'll have to get a Farquharson single-shot... But that wasn't the FIRST gun I thought to get. I didn't even know what it was.

Stirling XD
May 28, 2009, 12:22 PM
The AR15 is being used a lot by varmint hunters these days and at some pretty impressive ranges. I have hunted with both bolt and semi-auto rifles. Both rifles have their merits. 10 years ago I would have thought spending money on an AR15 to be a colossel waste. But now I would love to have an AR vaminting rifle for hunting coyotes and shooting prarie dogs (need more money). But for deer, elk, and antelope, I will probably stick with my bolt. If I ever get the opportunity to hunt in Africa, I will take either a bolt or a double (probably both).

Typically, bolt guns are more accurate than semi-autos. But most guns are more accurate than most shooters/hunters anyway. In other words, people that can't hit the target with a semi-auto probably wouldn't do any better with a bolt or a laser for that matter.

ArmedBear
May 28, 2009, 12:24 PM
In other words, people that can't hit the target with a semi-auto probably wouldn't do any better with a bolt or a laser for that matter.

That's absolutely true.

It's also true that the same demographic bought single actions and Winchesters in the '50s, safari-style bolt guns in the '60s, .44 Magnums in the '70s, etc.

Now they're buying ARs.

That DOES NOT IMPLY anything about the AR platform.:)

On the merits, the AR doesn't have to be babied, it's one of the easiest semiautos to clean, it is easy to get good accuracy, it has readily-available high-capacity magazines, a multitude of custom parts available, and it's modular so it can be built up to work for just about anything. That's why you might get one over a bolt gun. (There are also some reasons you might want a bolt gun over an AR, but that's not the question.)

All I was addressing was this: people who buy ARs aren't all making their choices based on this list, or on the basis of much at all.

taliv
May 28, 2009, 12:27 PM
fair enough

CoRoMo
May 28, 2009, 12:35 PM
I'd die if I was in CQB with a bolty. That's why.

jdh
May 28, 2009, 12:43 PM
Sniper has bolt gun.

M1C/D
M21
M25
M82A1/XM107

Yep, Sniper has a bolt gun.

wickedsprint
May 28, 2009, 01:07 PM
as has been stated repeatedly

it has a higher rate of fire
you don't have to move your hands or head between shots
it is lighter than most bolt guns
it is more maneuverable
it has less recoil than most bolt guns
it has more capacity
it is shorter and easier to carry
it is modular and easily adaptable to almost any use


you have yet to offer any support for why a bolt gun is more practical. it sounds like you're just whining about the price of AR15s.

Taliv, stop confusing practical with functionality. Most of your benefits only apply during hobby use or a firefight, neither of which are practical examples unless you get paid to do them or they put food on the table.

FYI I'm not whining, I already own a nice AR.

As far as benefits to a bolt gun...most people I've handed an AR15 cannot shoot it to save their life..hopefully never proven to be literally.

I noticed the same thing when we had to qualify with the M4/16 with iron sights. Not one person on the range didn't experience at least 1 jam of sorts.

I've never had a jam with a bolt-action

My bolt-action is cheaper and more accurate than my AR15

My bolt-action was half the price.

I can own my bolt-action in all 50 states :)

taliv
May 28, 2009, 01:18 PM
Taliv, stop confusing practical with functionality. Most of your benefits only apply during hobby use or a firefight, neither of which are practical examples unless you get paid to do them or they put food on the table.

that doesn't even make sense to me. what else is there besides hobby use and defense, which are the two primary use cases as far as I'm concerned?

most people I've handed an AR15 cannot shoot it to save their life
that is not my experience. i take college kids to the range all the time and let them shoot my guns. they never seem to have a problem hitting anything.

I've never had a jam with a bolt-action
i've had several malfunctions with bolts. people complain about the magazines and 'bottom metal' in bolt guns all the time for a reason. many just don't feed well at all.

search this forum for the hundreds of threads on controlled-round vs push feed, and the claw extractors. those controversies all exist because of malfunctions people have with bolt guns.

mljdeckard
May 28, 2009, 02:11 PM
Most ARs are 1/2-1 MOA accurate out of the box these days. The vast majority of shooters aren't going to be able to tell any difference between an AR and a bolt rifle in accuracy.

If we were comparing bolt rifles to AR-10s, the clear advantage would be cost. The AR has higher capacity, but costs much more. Again, most shooters aren't anywhere near good enough to make a difference with it being higher capacity or semi-auto. (When I had my M1A I wasn't shooting it any faster than I would shoot a bolt gun.)

I'm not ready to drop my Howa 1500 .270 for my AR or SKS as a hunting rifle, and I wouldn't grab my .270 first for defensive uses either. The truth is, it's darn near impossible to imagine using a bolt rifle for legitimate self-defense. The range you would be using it for is offensive by pretty much any definition. (Unless it is literally the only rifle you have.)

There's a reason we don't like to limit ourselves to only one gun. But if forced, I would rather use my EBRs for hunting than try to use my hunting rifles for defense.

The only malfunction I've ever had with a bolt rifle was my 1917 Enfield that kept popping the last round out of the magazine when I opened the bolt on it. I talked to an old gunsmith who had a new follower kicking around in a drawer, put it in, and it was fine. But at the same time, pretty much all of the malfunctions I have ever had with an M-16 were due to either blanks, worn magazines, or a combination of both.

wickedsprint
May 28, 2009, 02:54 PM
Taliv, no reason to get super defensive :) I was bored and posted a topic up *shrugs*

All I'm saying is that things like rate of fire and capacity only have real practical concerns in a firefight. So unless we are involved or actually preparing for a firefight..a lot of the AR advantages simply become "cool factors", not no kidding practical advantages.

Your friends shoot better than my friends.

OregonJohnny
May 28, 2009, 02:57 PM
Disclaimer: I own a bolt .30-06 and until recently, owned a Bushmaster AR. (I want to get another AR eventually). I skipped to the end of the thread, so forgive me if this has been posted.

My reason for liking ARs over bolt-action rifles is: FUN!

I once went out in the desert with my buddy and a truck full of guns. After shooting bolt rifles, lever rifles, pistols, revolvers, shotguns, and finally our ARs, my AR was by far the most fun I had that day. We set up pop cans at about 200 yards, and I blasted away with my scoped Bushmaster 20". ACCURATE! Watching pop cans dance around at 200 yards for 30 shots in a row is just...plain...fun.

We shot his scoped .300 Ultra Mag bolt-action at almost 500 yards, hitting the bull each time, but after 3 or 4 shots, it wasn't fun anymore.

Water-Man
May 28, 2009, 03:01 PM
So you can spray & pray!

ArmedBear
May 28, 2009, 03:04 PM
Watching pop cans dance around at 200 yards for 30 shots in a row is just...plain...fun.


Making a can dance with a single action revolver one-handed at 20 paces is just plain EVEN MORE FUN!:D

Seriously, though, a .22LR AR is fun because there's no nagging thought about spending $15 for each minute's shooting.

Gaiudo
May 28, 2009, 03:07 PM
Ever try to shoot hi-power with a turnbolt? How easy was it to meet your rapid fire seated time limit? Sure it can be done, easily, with practice. But I've rarely seen a new AR shooter run out of time, or have problems with the manual of arms.

Practicality? For hipower competition, I chose a semi-auto. This is neither war, nor LEO related

sgb
May 28, 2009, 03:11 PM
So outside of wars and LEO use, how exactly is an AR15 more practical?

One platform with great ergonomics that can be easily configured for many different shooters and many different applications. Need medium to long Range?

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-4/989537/ARS007.jpg

How about short to medium Range?

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-4/989537/ARS008.jpg

Or Close Quarters?

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-4/989537/SBR.jpg

Or maybe just more punch.

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-4/989537/SGBAR10a.jpg

Each and every one operates the same. ;)

CoRoMo
May 28, 2009, 03:19 PM
wicked...

It sounds like you are mixing the purpose of each gun. Each is a different tool for different purposes.

Sort of like asking, "Why have an expensive socket set when one set of pliers can grip any size of bolt head"?

It appears that from your posts, the uses you put a rifle to don't necessitate anything more sophisticated than a bolt action rifle.

Some people/purposes in fact require such sophistication.

Kino74
May 28, 2009, 03:55 PM
The AR15 is perhaps the most versatile rifle you can get. Its hard not to find a role the AR15 platform can't fill and do it quite nicely.

61chalk
May 28, 2009, 05:12 PM
Nothing wrong with bolt guns..I have had them..just like semi-auto.
An I bought my AR back in 1980..why?...because, yes, it was cool looking..an I knew my brother carried one in Nam back in 69'. I bought it an really loved it, my brother visited an I decided to surprise him an let him shoot it a few times down at the swamp...that was the only time he has shot it or wanted to see it, an surprized me when he told me how he didn't like them, an wished in combat he had been able to keep his M-14 from basic. Anyway I still love my AR, an understand it...but I think people still want them today for the single reason that they are just a great looking weapon...among others.

numaone
May 28, 2009, 05:33 PM
I think a lot (most) of it is personal preference. Why do you like pink when I like blue?

Would I ever buy a BMW for $70K+ when my $20k Honda is almost as functional as the BMW? No, not unless I had too much money. Sure the BMW comes with twice the horsepower, a better suspension and a softer ride, will I ever know the difference unless I hitting an on-ramp at over 60 MPH full throttle? Besides, I like cloth seats over leather seats any day!

I think it's the same argument for an AR. Some people just like the darned things. Myself included. I have a nice Remmy 700 and wouldn't trade it for anything... Well maybe a nice LMT AR if I could buy one... ok just joking, but you get the drift. They have different market segments.

I was at the range last weekend with my .22 rifle working at 100 yards. College kid next to me with 3 ARs , worth atleast $3000 each, didn't have a clue how to use them. He asked me to help him sight his TA31 ACOG on one of them. When I got it zero'd in for him, I watched him shoot it and noticed he was clean missing the paper at 50 yard. I informed him, "I think you are shooting a little high" to which he said, "Yea, I'm just shooting at the back of the berm." Hell for $.50 a round, just give me the $15 for that magazine you wasted. But he was more than happy with his $3000+ noisemakers basting $15 away in a matter of seconds.

Well that's my worthless $.02. And that's why the need to keep the penny, because without them, I couldn't give it.

Zundfolge
May 28, 2009, 05:38 PM
This is kind of a silly question.
Agreed.

Its like a Jeep owner asking a Porsche owner why they bought an inferior vehicle.

Or the guy eating an apple asking the guy eating the orange why he's eating the inferior fruit.

H2O MAN
May 28, 2009, 05:39 PM
I don't own an AR or a bolt gun and I'm good with that :)

shaggy430
May 28, 2009, 05:56 PM
what else is there besides hobby use and defense, which are the two primary use cases as far as I'm concerned?

Hunting.

Polar Express
May 28, 2009, 06:11 PM
It's a gun people, it doesn't NEED to be practical! Is my jeep with different axles, a cut and welded up frame, and 36" swamper tires practical? No. It's a hobby. Something you enjoy doing does not have to be practical. By the time you pay off the boat, buy all the tackle and bait, is it cheaper to catch your own fish, or go to the local market and buy the freshest fish of your choice? (hint: market is loads better) but the process of FISHING is the fun part.

Now, some folks feel that as a citizenry, we are obligated to be familiar with firearms and their function. I suspect that even the vast majority of those folks don't feel you need to have a particular rifle platform, but just own one, and know how to use it. (this is pure speculation here)

Before the AWB of '94, my dad ( I was too young) did not own one gun that qualified as an AW. Within a month, he owned 3 Mini-14s, a Mak-90 and an SKS. Why? They are fun to shoot, and when you feel that your ability to exercise that option may be in jeopardy, your time line/ priority ranking is adjusted to preserve that ability, right?

I bought my first (and only AR) about 8 years ago. It was built during the AWB of '94-'04, and thus the configuration was limited. After the ban expired, there was no rush to make it the way I wanted, until the political winds changed, and it appeared they might do another AWB. So, I dumped a bunch of $$ and built an M1A, and changed the configuration of my AR. I also loaded up on mags, so if there is another AWB, I'm in a position to be grandfathered and be able to shoot what I want, when I want. Unfortunately, prices have gone up, but I'm kinda ruthless, and patient all at the same time, and was able to do what I wanted for likely the same prices I would have a year ago.

Ammo and supplies are a different story. :cuss: But, I've just placed my order for a Dillon, so not only can I shoot now, but my grand kids will be able to shoot as well.

Polar Express
May 28, 2009, 06:18 PM
oh, and I should add, that I haven't bought one firearm or magazine, or any ammo ever, with the intention of using it as an investment. But I don't blame anyone who has. It's purely speculation.

.... but I don't go fishing to try and sell the fish for a profit either. ;)

flyboy1788
May 28, 2009, 06:22 PM
I don't own an AR or a bolt gun and I'm good with that

How do you live man?!?!?!

CoRoMo
May 28, 2009, 06:25 PM
I don't own an AR or a bolt gun and I'm good with that
How do you live man?!?!?!

You don't know H2O MAN (http://www.athenswater.com/My_MK14_SEI.htm) do you?
If I had his toys, I wouldn't want an AR at all.

flyboy1788
May 28, 2009, 06:43 PM
Nope, please fill me in. I cant believe any self-respecting gun enthusiast doesnt have a bolt-gun. Maybe we should get all of the THR members to donate one dollar and get him a bolt gun or an AR so he can finally experience true joy. Once he acquires one, the skies will become bluer, grass will become greener, sunsets will be more beautiful, and the food he eats will actually taste better. No lie. :neener:

Reid73
May 28, 2009, 06:54 PM
Besides the cool factor, why the craziness over ARs?The first three words of your question provides the answer! :)

Many (I don't say most, and certainly not all) people purchasing ARs don't know much about firearms, or even have much need for a firearm. They just want something that looks like a 'machine gun'.

Most people (again, not all) purchasing bolt action rifles tend to be hunters or competive target shooters. Their numbers are few, relative to all the Walter Mittys out there.

No one said an AR is MORE practical but you sure can't argue that it's any LESS practical.It depends on what the intended 'mission' is. As wickedsprint has said, an AR is more practical for short to medium range combat applications than any bolt action rifle. It is less practical for long range combat, or for most hunting applications.

I agree with Polar Express that in any case, practical considerations typically count for little in individual firearm preferences.

As far as I am concerned, the more people who buy firearms - any firearms - the better. Anyone who owns a gun is more likely than a non-gun owner to oppose restrictive laws, even if they never use the gun and it spends its entire life in a closet or drawer. We need all the political support that we can get!

a bolt action isn't more practical. that's an absurd statement.Frankly I am surprised to find a moderator making such an unhelpful and provocative comment. :( Please try to stick to the high road.

that doesn't even make sense to me. what else is there besides hobby use and defense, which are the two primary use cases as far as I'm concerned?Well, as I indicated above, competitive target shooting and hunting are two well-established uses for centrefire rifles. You may not personally enjoy either activity, but that doesn't make them irrelevant.

wood22345
May 28, 2009, 07:03 PM
well with respect to all. you must understand the market and politics. In the wake of the most antigun administration in decades. The citizens are in fear that the right to bare arms and at the very least to have AR-15's or taxation of ammunition and firearms. They are buying them. aside form the market aspect the reasoning behind ar-15's over bolt rifles. is simple the same reason the military does not use bolt action rifles.

wood22345
May 28, 2009, 07:06 PM
(bear)

ArmedBear
May 28, 2009, 07:09 PM
the most antigun administration in decades

Sadly, it's probably not.

It's just ANOTHER anti-gun administration, as bad as the worst.

Reid73
May 28, 2009, 07:12 PM
wood22345,

Dont get started on the speling or grammer, or will never get anywere.

Have off the people on this forum either dont know how to rite or cant be bothered to type proper.

flyboy1788
May 28, 2009, 07:14 PM
^^^^^^^rofl :D

taliv
May 28, 2009, 07:15 PM
Hunting.

the vast majority of hunting is recreational. even most deer meat is donated.



Frankly I am surprised to find a moderator making such an unhelpful and provocative comment. Please try to stick to the high road.

it was neither unhelpful nor provocative and more importantly, it was about the argument, not the other posters. it is merely the opposite of the utterly unsupported claim in the OP.

...unlike your comment, which was directed at me and failed to address the argument. feel free to provide some support for why that wasn't an absurd statement.

Well, as I indicated above, competitive target shooting and hunting are two well-established uses for centrefire rifles. You may not personally enjoy either activity, but that doesn't make them irrelevant.

i shoot matches almost every weekend. it is a hobby. feel free to go back and reread this thread if the context is unclear to you. the fact that many competitive sports require fast follow up shots is one of the many things that make the AR more 'practical' than a bolt gun.

given that hunting and competition fall into the hobby category, i'll ask again: what else is there?

Reid73
May 28, 2009, 07:31 PM
I misunderstood your hobby reference.

I disagree that it is self-evidently "absurd" to suggest that for many hunting applications, a bolt action is more practical than an AR. For one thing, it is simply illegal to use an AR for hunting in some jurisdictions. Perhaps that is unfortunate, but it is a fact.

I also respectfully suggest that it is unhelpful and needlessly provocative to label other people's post "absurd". Admittedly it is better than calling the poster stupid ... but not much better.

We're all posting here because we enjoy each other's (synthetic) company and can benefit from each other's perspectives. Why raise hackles if we can avoid it?

Luv my 1897
May 28, 2009, 07:33 PM
Quicker follow up shots.



I disagree that it is self-evidently "absurd" to suggest that for many hunting applications, a bolt action is more practical than an AR. For one thing, it is simply illegal to use an AR for hunting in some jurisdictions. Perhaps that is unfortunate, but it is a fact.

I live in California. You CAN use AR style rifles to hunt in this state, it just has to be .30 caliber or higher. That is the reason I am going to buy an AR chambered in .308. It is thought of as inhumane to hunt with a .223 or smaller unless you are hunting varmints. I actually agree with that. The 5.56mm round was created for battle, not hunting.

Luv my 1897
May 28, 2009, 07:51 PM
fwiw, I haven't paid extra for the ARs I've purchased since the election.


THANK YOU!!! Everyone says AR's are getting more expensive because of Obama, but I haven't seen a significant rise AT ALL! The only thing I see happening is people after the election went and spent three months salary on ammo! I used to be able to go to Wal-Mart and get two or three boxes of Remington Core-Lokt for my 30-30 in any weight I want. Now all they have is crappy flat-nosed (inaccurate) or Ballistic Silvertip (28 dollars a box!) The whole Obama gun scare thing is getting annoying. :scrutiny:

61chalk
May 28, 2009, 07:51 PM
taliv...."...majority of hunting is recreational. Even most deer meat is donated."

How did you come up with that? It's sure isn't true around my parts...did you read this on a website, or just a personal observation where your at?

taliv
May 28, 2009, 08:00 PM
talking to people around here. could very well be regional or just the people i hang out with. even so, people hunt because they want to, not because they need jerky and summer sausage

Kino74
May 28, 2009, 08:10 PM
Perhaps some people forgot that most gunowners don't hunt.

As far as the comments about AR15 owners lack of firearms knowledge or shooting skills, the same can be said about any segment of the gunowning population of which hunters are no exception.

FMF
May 28, 2009, 08:28 PM
You can fire it thirty times in a row instead of one. There's nothing about that I don't like.


Amen to that!

shaggy430
May 28, 2009, 08:35 PM
people hunt because they want to, not because they need jerky and summer sausage

On the contrary, I never ate a single meal at my house my entire childhood where the meat was bought from the store. I'm sure there are others with this same experience.

Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
May 28, 2009, 08:39 PM
I think it's a very good question, and I mostly agree that for all practical intents and purposes, a good turnbolt is BETTER than a good semi (those practical uses being hunting mostly), due to:

1. Reliability (both general feeding reliability and positive extraction)
2. Lower sight line (better for close-in shots)
3. Lighter weight
4. Easier to shoot from a benchrest for sighting in
5. (very marginal advantage) More "politically correct" looking which could matter to some in some circumstances

Did I mention reliability, reliability, reliability? :)

But having said that, I do likes my semis for that theoretical, ain't-never-really-gonna-happen STHF scenario, and perhaps more importantly as a practical matter, that theoretical and could-possibly-happen, 2nd-rapid-follow-up-shot-on-game needed. So I'm willing to take the weight trade-off, and take on the reliability issue, which can be solved with proper mags, well-designed, well-assembled gun, proper tuning, consistent shooting hold, and consistent ammo.

Now, since (a) I want to cover my contingency bases described that the semi-auto fulfills, and (b) I want to get really really good with JUST ONE rifle, I have thus made my go-to rifle for 98% of hunting & self-defense uses the same one, an AR10 type in .260 rem.

Having said the original statement about a turnbolt being more practical, which it is really (not to mention a lever or pump is as well), there ARE a couple of additional specific advantages to the semi above and beyond capacity/follow-up shots/not moving head between shots, some of which have been mentioned but one of which has not yet been mentioned.

Mentioned was the softer recoil. Not mentioned well the compatibility of most semis (EBR types anyhow), for use with a good single point sling, which I actually find quite useful for stalking/ "still-hunting". Using the single point, or a 3-point for that matter, allows a good way to hold the rifle at the low ready, for hours, without fatigueing as you would do holding up all the weight of a sporter rifle with your arms, since it would only have a carry strap on it, not a sling, then allow you to raise and fire quickly when game is spotted. Since I prefer the stalking/still-hunting method of hunting over an ambush /tree stand setup (which just ends up with me asleep), this is an important point to me.

Now the day that Remington puts a ring on the rear of the receiver of a 700 so that I can attach a single point to it and go stalk, then I'll change my tune, but until then, this is a real *practical* advantage to the EBR style semi-auto - for HUNTING! IMO.

TexasRifleman
May 28, 2009, 08:45 PM
talking to people around here. could very well be regional or just the people i hang out with. even so, people hunt because they want to, not because they need jerky and summer sausage

Somewhat true I guess. I don't need to hunt for the meat, I need to hunt for the primal connection to the food chain if that makes sense. But you're right, hunting is recreational at this point.

Thing is though that could change very quickly in an economic crisis.

dullh
May 28, 2009, 08:57 PM
The AR's are what all the "operators" (real and internet!) use - it's all the rage!

Never liked them. I had to carry a Vietnam-era M16 when I was on active duty and could care less if I ever touched one again. Had two (Armalite and RRA), sold them. AR's are novelty items to me. You will not have to stand in line behind me at the gun shop counter to get an AR, 'cause I won't be there! The only two military pattern rifles I own are an Inland Steel M1 Carbine from WWII and an HK-91 (a real one not a clone). The rest are lever guns, bolt guns and a (new) muzzleloader.

You can have all the AR stuff you want - I just don't care for them.

P.B.Walsh
May 28, 2009, 09:33 PM
Both have their advantages and disavantages.

cchris
May 28, 2009, 09:35 PM
The reason I want an AR (NOT over a bolt gun), and the same reason that almost everyone I know has purchased one, is the fear of another AWB.

Most likely, I'll just buy a stripped lower receiver. If they add in some clause to a ban where you have to have a functioning gun to order parts for it, a friend is going to sell me all of his parts, I'll buy the new parts for my gun, and I'll sell them back to him - this is in South Carolina so secondhand firearm transactions aren't required to be documented (and most of the time they aren't).

I own a 10/22, an 11-48, and an SW9VE...but the gun that I have the most fun shooting is the bolt action one (Gew98). The guy who taught me all about firearms and got me into them owns an AR, by far his first choice in a defensive situation once he can get to it (using a pistol as the first line of defense).

He'll never bump-fire it and will rarely pull the trigger twice in a row, and just has it as an accurate weapon in the event that it's needed. Don't get me wrong, it's not that he prefers it over a bolt action - his next project is to build a highly-accurate bolt action rifle.

P.B.Walsh
May 28, 2009, 09:40 PM
Well the only reason I want a AR is to target shoot with iron sights, and it has a bayonet lug. :evil:

taliv
May 28, 2009, 09:50 PM
1. Reliability (both general feeding reliability and positive extraction)
2. Lower sight line (better for close-in shots)
3. Lighter weight
4. Easier to shoot from a benchrest for sighting in
5. (very marginal advantage) More "politically correct" looking which could matter to some in some circumstances

1. a quality AR is plenty reliable. and if it makes you feel better, feel free to remove the gas tube and hand-cycle it. several mfgs sell AR pattern rifles with a side-cocking handle.

2. once you stick a scope on a bolt gun, you lose this advantage. which brings up a good point... for all you "defensive bolt gun" guys: how come i don't remember ever seeing someone put an aimpoint or eotech on a bolt gun?

3. not really. a stock AR is about 1-2 lbs lighter than a stock rem700. (6.5lbs vs 7.5-8.5 lbs depending on BDL vs VSS, and that's with a fluted barrel). think about it. aluminum, plastic, 16" bbl vs wood and 20-26" bbl

4. i'm afraid i don't follow your logic on this one

shaggy430
May 28, 2009, 09:55 PM
4. i'm afraid i don't follow your logic on this one

I can see where he was coming from. The extended magazine makes benchrest shooting more difficult.

Winston_Smith
May 28, 2009, 09:58 PM
Anything a bolt gun can do, an AR can do better (comparing the same cartridge).

taliv
May 28, 2009, 10:04 PM
there are plenty of 20 rnd mags, and if you really do that much benchrest shooting, there are single-shot inserts to replace the mag

ArmedBear
May 28, 2009, 10:05 PM
(6.5lbs vs 7.5-8.5 lbs depending on BDL vs VSS, and that's with a fluted barrel).

...except that the heavier bolt gun shoots a superior cartridge. For every neat-o round the AR-15 will shoot, there's a much better one that fits in standard bolt actions.

And don't say, "Well, you can get an AR-10" because that has few of the advantages of the AR-15, other than the fact that it's a semiauto.

I can see where he was coming from. The extended magazine makes benchrest shooting more difficult.


A bottom-feeder isn't as convenient on the bench, one way or another.

I'm not a defensive bolt-action guy or whatever. I'm also not much of a defensive AR guy. All of you who want to play Army, go ahead. The likelihood of an AR being my best choice for self-defense is infinitessimal.

Maybe you all have really big mansions to defend. I don't. I hate vaccuuming.:D

But this is getting silly.

taliv- Sure, you can get all sorts of exotic stuff that fits on an AR lower. So what? Little of it is remotely affordable. You are sounding like a Glocknut, only with ARs. The AR is NOT the only rifle in existence, even if it is the only rifle in your world.

shaggy430
May 28, 2009, 10:06 PM
I think this thread has gone far enough.

ArmedBear
May 28, 2009, 10:09 PM
I think this thread has gone far enough.

Yeah.

It's interesting. People in the military have all sorts of things to say about the thing, good and bad. But civilians think it's the end-all?

It's obvious the bolt gun wasn't the end-all of rifle design, because it was superceded for some applications by designs like the AR decades ago. Nobody sane would dispute that.

taliv
May 28, 2009, 10:18 PM
...except that the heavier bolt gun shoots a superior cartridge. For every neat-o round the AR-15 will shoot, there's a much better one that fits in standard bolt actions.

a rem700 chambered in 223rem is still heavier.

if you want to say an advantage of bolt guns is that they fire larger cartridges, fine. that wasn't on the list i was responding to; 'lighter' was.

i've never said AR15s are perfect or that it's the end-all. there is lots of room for improvement.

jdh
May 28, 2009, 10:36 PM
Going back to the dog patch, I have never done a double on dogs with a bolt gun. A good shooter can do doubles on dogs with ease. A really good shooter can do triples.

Next, if ARs are such inaccurate short range guns why are they sweeping the 1000 yard competitions at Camp Perry?

SHvar
May 28, 2009, 11:41 PM
On the subject of M-16 M4 and jams. In all the years I was in the army I never once in training, or combat saw or heard of one single jam or malfunction. I have trained in all environments, and was in combat in the desert.
In the years Ive dealt with ARs in any way Ive never witnessed a single malfunction or its result in person, but a few people always claim it happens all the time.
I think most people buy firearms on occasion without thinking about it long enough, or deciding what they would be better served to own. Look at the amount of used firearms for sale all of the time. In fact AKs and SKS are more popular to be bought as a novelty and sold quickly and frequently.
I agree with a responce above, years ago I wanted the AR but didnt want to spend the money it cost, instead I was suggested to own the mini-14 (which was fun, but not accurate after the first shot). Dont get me wrong with open sights the mini 14 can be very good for shooting at a few hundred meters, just no accuracy in follow up shots.
I waited many years before I bought an AR, and dont know why I waited so long.
Sometime in the future Ill have a new upper to add to the collection also.

Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
May 29, 2009, 12:02 AM
once you stick a scope on a bolt gun, you lose this advantage.

Ermm, no not really, not to the extent that I mean. A low-ish mounted scope on a turnbolt has around 1.5" of height over the bore line; whereas a low-mounted scope on an AR is still around 2.75" over the bore. That means you'll hit 2.75" low at 5 yards, over an inch further away from the point of aim than with a turnbolt.

Arbor
May 29, 2009, 12:18 AM
Ermm, no not really, not to the extent that I mean. A low-ish mounted scope on a turnbolt has around 1.5" of height over the bore line; whereas a low-mounted scope on an AR is still around 2.75" over the bore. That means you'll hit 2.75" low at 5 yards, over an inch further away from the point of aim than with a turnbolt.

Moot point because of the obvious superiority of a semi-auto for quick 5-yard shots. ;)

mljdeckard
May 29, 2009, 12:36 AM
I agree about AR reliability. Keep it clean, keep the bolt wet, keep the dust cover closed. The only times I ever recall any stoppages were with combinations of blanks and/or worn magazines.

wickedsprint
May 29, 2009, 01:00 AM
I appreciate the responses guys, even the insulting ones from the moderator :)

I had not considered a lot of things..which is why I asked the question.

As far as the car analogy it seemed more in line with living in NYC..but paying the premium to own a Humvee...it's just something cool to have.

I got my AR to gain proficiency with before I deployed...but mostly just something neat to have.

cchris
May 29, 2009, 01:02 AM
I think I can sum up what at least some people are thinking here...

Don't choose an AR over a bolt-action.

Don't choose a bolt-action over an AR.

buy BOTH.

RockyMtnTactical
May 29, 2009, 02:43 AM
My AR15's are primarily for the defense of my home, family, and freedoms. I can assure you that my AR15's will perform these jobs as well and in most cases MUCH better than any bolt gun could.

I own bolt guns. Heck, I love all guns, but my AR15's ain't going anywhere.

I hunt with them as well and wouldnt trade them for any bolt guns. It's funny to watch my friends with bolt guns shoot when we hunt coyotes. If they miss one shot, they might as well have a muzzle loader.

Reid73
May 29, 2009, 10:32 AM
I live in California. You CAN use AR style rifles to hunt in this state, it just has to be .30 caliber or higher.Well sure. There are plenty of places where an AR is quite legal for hunting. However, there are countries where this is not the case. While you could certainly stay home, many of those countries offer desirable hunting opportunities, e.g. South Africa, Canada, Namibia, etc.

ArmedBear
May 29, 2009, 10:37 AM
Huh?

.30 caliber requirement for hunting in California?

Is that new?

When I took HS in California, the law was "any centerfire rifle." I think that included elk hunting, which of course is a tough tag lottery, but does exist in the state. I didn't make too much of a mental note, since I had no intention to hunt elk with a .223 or any other round that would fit in a standard AR.

I am unaware of any hunting reg in California that specifies .30 caliber, but I don't keep up with their regs any more.

wood22345
May 29, 2009, 12:52 PM
THANK YOU!!! Everyone says AR's are getting more expensive because of Obama, but I haven't seen a significant rise AT ALL

on that note?! I am in the gun business: the prices are going up just a bit. the day of the election we sold about 6 times the amount of guns of previous years. I have had a hard time finding guns of any make or model. just for an example Kimbers are 10 months out for shipment. Ar's are on average 12 months and so on. between advelorem tax and the election people are going nuts. to include ammo no primers, powder, bullets....
nothing is out there and my suppliers are on the national scale not regional...wake up america please wake up read between the lines.... politics are like chess one piece at a time.. now they have all they need the only thing stopping them is you all contacting your representitives....I will leave it at that....

Art Eatman
May 29, 2009, 12:52 PM
AB, apparently it's not the caliber, it's the platform. You can use a Bad Thing if it has a more socially acceptable cartridge. :) Might include some "5-round magazine" deal, as well. But, I dunno...

Sure, an AR is a better critter for dealing with heaps, gobs and bunches of hostiles. I'l use mine, if the pagan hordes come thundering up my mountain.

Day to day, however, I'm much more a hunter. My 6.5 pound 700 Ti in 7mm08 is my choice for the edification of intellectually incompetent Bambis which let me get within some 300 yards. My 77 Mk II in .223 does nicely on prairie dogs and coyotes, and I'm in no great hurry to shoot doubles or triples. (Come to think of it, I tend to avoid hurrying, just as a matter of personal policy...)

ArmedBear
May 29, 2009, 01:03 PM
AB, apparently it's not the caliber, it's the platform. You can use a Bad Thing if it has a more socially acceptable cartridge. Might include some "5-round magazine" deal, as well. But, I dunno...

Well, I got pretty familiar with California hunting regs. Rifle and handgun regs are about as loose as anywhere I can think of.

Centerfire handguns are legal for all hunting, but minimum 4" barrel required for elk and bear. You can legally go hunting deer with a 637 if you want to.

Semiauto rifles are legal for all hunting, no magazine size limit.

Shotguns are more restricted, with 3-shot plugs required for all game hunting (not for pest control).

ARNETT44
May 29, 2009, 01:09 PM
" It's the Harley Davidson of rifles" I like that, I am stealing that line.

Reid73
May 29, 2009, 01:15 PM
Come to think of it, I tend to avoid hurrying, just as a matter of personal policy...As Ross Seyfried says, "You can't miss fast enough to catch up."

ArmedBear
May 29, 2009, 01:16 PM
I'l use mine, if the pagan hordes come thundering up my mountain.

A member of the Magyar Hordes already stalks my backyard, hunts down quail, and even chases frisbees.

I think that said hordes may be less fearsome than we imagine.:D

ARNETT44
May 29, 2009, 05:11 PM
this is kinda silly, Truck or Corvette, both vehicles but, can do different things though.

Reid73
May 29, 2009, 05:17 PM
You are perfectly right. But many (most?) of the threads on this forum are essentially pointless discussions of inherently subjective topics.

Still fun to exchange views, though.

RockyMtnTactical
May 29, 2009, 09:37 PM
Well sure. There are plenty of places where an AR is quite legal for hunting. However, there are countries where this is not the case. While you could certainly stay home, many of those countries offer desirable hunting opportunities, e.g. South Africa, Canada, Namibia, etc.

Different tools for different jobs. My AR15's don't do everything, otherwise I would only own AR15's...

AR15's can cover a wide range of different jobs very very well, for the rest, I have different firearms...

TheFallGuy
May 29, 2009, 10:09 PM
I am in the process of building my first AR-15. I have a Tikka T3 in .308 and multiple other firearms.

My reasons for wanting an AR over another bolt or pump (or semi auto for that matter) are:

1. I learned a lot about it in the military. So did lots of other people.
2. I can clean it in my sleep.
3. It's easy as heck to work on.
4. It's accurate enough for coyotes.
5. They are awesome fun.
6. They are addictive.
7. Who knows when the next ban will be passed? Will I ever be able to own one again?
8. They are plenty reliable.

noob_shooter
May 29, 2009, 10:14 PM
personally, i will never own an AR. no use for it really and like you said, the price is up there. Round is too much for small game and seem a but too little for big game. Target and maybe varmint are the only uses. for HD, i got my pistols+saiga 308 + 12 gauge. I prefer me a rem. 700 in 30-06 or savage 10FP in .308 over any AR any day.

4v50 Gary
May 29, 2009, 11:27 PM
A good bolt gun will never sound like a pogo stick that the AR so gleefully mimics. :D

ArmedBear
May 30, 2009, 12:02 AM
a rem700 chambered in 223rem is still heavier.


...and if I ever buy a 700 chambered in .223 from a dealer, it would constitute a felony. If I were buying a 700 in .223, I'd have to be lying on Form 4473, item 12e.:D

I'd say that about a 700 in general, except that I might, at some point, buy something based on a 700 action. But a production 700? I'd have to be stoned. To get one in .223, I'd have to be blitzed out of my mind.

Note two things.

1. I am not lying on 4473 item 12e.
2. I do not own, nor plan to own, any Remington rifles.

Therefore, I couldn't care less whether one would weigh more, or less, than one of my ARs.:)

Maverick223
May 30, 2009, 12:14 AM
I'd have to be lying on Form 4473, item 12e.AB, are you out of your mind? :D

jackdanson
May 30, 2009, 12:18 AM
"It's the Harley Davidson of rifles" I like that, I am stealing that line.

Except it's not big, overpriced, and ugly. I also have never thought, "hey, how can I make my AR louder and more annoying to people in the lane next to me", which seems to be a theme with harley riders.

hehe ::dons flame suit::


As to OP.. frankly I can't outshoot my AR in any field positions, I don't really need anything more accurate. Plus with a rem 700 you need to drop at least 350 on a mediocre scope to have a firearm that is even the least bit useful. After optics the AR is cheaper.

waterhouse
May 30, 2009, 12:37 AM
If I were buying a 700 in .223, I'd have to be lying on Form 4473, item 12e.

Just to be clear, there is no 12e. 11e is the marijuana/drugs question. 12 is the "if you are a non-immigrant alien , do you fall withitn any exemptions . . ." question.

yokel
May 30, 2009, 12:51 AM
SGT Alvin York and his plain-Jane bolt action repeater rifle made mincemeat of the enemy armed with crew-served machine guns.

Granted, most of us are not blessed with York's jaw-dropping ability to rapidly engage and destroy targets with aplomb, even under the most stressful of circumstances.

Maverick223
May 30, 2009, 01:16 AM
Just to be clear, there is no 12e.Yep, think he was referring to 11f. :)

BushyGuy
May 30, 2009, 01:54 AM
AR has quicker follow up shots then a bolt gun, and it is more fun to shoot and less flinchin... I would choose my Bushmaster for an all around gun over any bolt action any day,, if i need to reach out i will simply hide till they come in closer....:neener:

Max C.
May 30, 2009, 01:59 AM
Do you want/need semi-auto capability or not? If not, there's no reason to have an AR or any other Semi-auto rifle. If so, then an AR or any other good semi-auto is clearly a good choice.

dscottw88
May 30, 2009, 02:45 AM
Because its an AR. Trying to justify the fact you dont need one is admitting you want one. If I can only have 1, I'd take an AR. If I could have two, I'd take another AR. On and on and on. Its better for home defense and it makes the anti's shake in their boots.

IndianaBoy
May 30, 2009, 03:57 AM
They are handy to keep around the home....

altitude_19
May 30, 2009, 06:54 AM
Is this a serious question? Because they want a standard ("high") capacity, semi-automatic firearm and believe that it may soon be illegal to own one. Whatever you crave in life, I'll bet good money you'll pay whatever you have to for it if you find out you may soon be unable to acquire it at all. So if you read the news and have even the faintest grasp of the concept of supply and demand, you already know the answer to this question.
Simple rhetoric: People pay because they want it bad enough.
BTW: DUH!!!! We all know bolts have a greater range and reliability rating. But a one shot kill capability with low capacity and rate of fire makes it suited to snipers and hunters (hopefully you're the latter). Your 500yd (?) kill range is no good when you most typically can't decide whether or not a man needs killing at that distance, making the defensive application of such a firearm likely an irrelevant question. An engagement where accuracy and reliability trump capacity and rate of fire is the exception, not the rule. That is a mathematical fact.
If I have nothing else, you'd better believe I'd be on both knees thanking the Almighty for the bolt action he gave me. But given the option of one massive center of mass shot, and being able the throw 30 rounds at an aggressor, guess which one I'm gonna take. EVEN IF IT JAMS AFTER EVERY ROUND, it will still have the same rate of fire as a bolt action, but STILL have a higher capacity. Think what you like, but odds are plenty of armed professionals disagree with you, and make a living doing it. And that's coming from somebody who DOESN'T own an AR (I have a mini :D).

wickedsprint
May 30, 2009, 07:59 AM
This question was already asked and answered awhile ago, but I apprecite your passionate response :)

Joe Demko
May 30, 2009, 08:00 AM
Here's the answer for almost all of the A v. B threads so we'll never have to do this again:

A because A is cooler than B and because I am cooler (and smarter and richer and better looking and have a hotter gf) than you.

In any future threads, just plug in the names of the appropriate guns. Spend the time you saved in dry fire practice.

woof
May 30, 2009, 08:13 AM
Joe Demko nailed it. I was gonna say because if you want to "play army" you don't want to do it with a hundred year old grampa rifle.

Not just with guns but with cars and lots of other stuff - people don't buy what they need. They buy what the person they would like to be needs.

LAK
May 30, 2009, 10:45 AM
TexasRiflemanQuote: So outside of wars and LEO use, how exactly is an AR15 more practical?

No one said an AR is MORE practical but you sure can't argue that it's any LESS practical.
I agree with this, and one could say both are practical for just about anything within the limitations of the cartridges they are chambered for and the mechanical accuracy limitations of the individual rifles. The rest is all between the ears.

I would add though that the continued craving for ARs despite the high prices is more than likely due to a perceived practical advantage, and the perceived possibility of a ban down the road.

TexasRifleman
May 30, 2009, 10:48 AM
I would add though that the continued craving for ARs despite the high prices is more than likely due to a perceived practical advantage, and the perceived possibility of a ban down the road.

I agree. I certainly DISAGREE with the statement that the AR is the best selling rifle in the US simply because people want to 'play army'.

Art Eatman
May 30, 2009, 11:12 AM
For over sixty years I've been reading about the "quick second shot" or "quick followup shot".

My preference is, "If you don't have the time to do it right the first time, how are you gonna find the time to do it over?"

I dunno. Maybe I'm spoiled. Bang, plop, go gut Bambi. But, I'll admit, so far I haven't had to go gut Goblins, which may get us back to heaps, gobs and bunches. Dunno.

Hey, ARs are neat. What other critter plays music in your ear when you shoot? Even if it's only a Johnny One-note song. Only gun I know that goes, "Bang-sproink." That's worth the price of admission right there, I don't care who you are.

IndianaBoy
May 30, 2009, 11:55 AM
Joe Demko nailed it. I was gonna say because if you want to "play army" you don't want to do it with a hundred year old grampa rifle.

Not just with guns but with cars and lots of other stuff - people don't buy what they need. They buy what the person they would like to be needs.

How offensive to assert that the thousands of three gun shooters and varmint hunters who choose AR-15s are somehow trying to overcome perceived shortcomings, that you are projecting onto them.

How fortunate we are to live in America where those with small minds don't get to decide what the rest of us get to own.

I don't feel the need to run down black powder shooters. I own more bolt actions than anything. I have use for an AR. I don't have a use for a 3000 dollar trap gun. Should I make disparaging comments about guys who shoot clays every weekend?

Gun owners, our own worst enemies.

JDGray
May 30, 2009, 12:47 PM
So why the continued AR craze in light of recent prices and availability issues?

Along with the coolness factor, you get elivness:evil::cool:

Joe Demko
May 30, 2009, 05:18 PM
How offensive to assert that the thousands of three gun shooters and varmint hunters who choose AR-15s are somehow trying to overcome perceived shortcomings, that you are projecting onto them.

Wow, I must have some really, really serious shortcomings; I own two of the beggars at present and have owned others in the past.

WinchesterAA
May 30, 2009, 05:21 PM
get a browning BLR.. Lightweight, accurate, detachable box magazine for quick reloads. It's a pretty sturdy platform, too. I've shot it quite a bit and it's still as tight as ever.

I have a 2.5x scope on mine.

IndianaBoy
May 30, 2009, 05:58 PM
Wow, I must have some really, really serious shortcomings; I own two of the beggars at present and have owned others in the past.

Kindly notice that I wasn't quoting you.

Travis Bickle
May 30, 2009, 07:07 PM
The obvious reason is that ARs are semiauto and give you a higher rate of fire.

Reid73
May 30, 2009, 10:26 PM
I certainly DISAGREE with the statement that the AR is the best selling rifle in the US simply because people want to 'play army'.Well, we're all entitled to our opinions. I agreed [sorry, AGREE ;)] with the statement, to some extent anyway.

There are lots of ninja commandos out there, wanting to look cool and imagining that buying/possessing a 'black rifle' magically gives them all the skills of a trained and experienced soldier. That rationale probably fits few people on this forum ... but that is not the subject under discussion.

Not just with guns but with cars and lots of other stuff - people don't buy what they need. They buy what the person they would like to be needs. This statement is not offensive: it's simply Marketing 101.

ArmedBear
May 30, 2009, 11:43 PM
I don't feel the need to run down black powder shooters.

They generally have the balls to admit that they enjoy playing mountain man.

Should I make disparaging comments about guys who shoot clays every weekend?


They'd just laugh at you anyway and perhaps offer a friendly bet. People who make fun of clay shooters generally can't hit squat.

And yes, 3-gun IS "playing army." What the hell is wrong with THAT?:rolleyes:

The ARMY plays army, when they're not at war.

Finally, I doubt that varmint hunters need you to come to their rescue...

SHvar
May 31, 2009, 12:49 AM
Our old bolt guns at work grouped larger consistantly than any AR Ive ever fired at 100 yds, both using .223. The newer rifles group a bit better than the old ones.
Im sure with spending more money on the bolt gun it will shoot better than an AR. Take my target rifle for example, I payed half price for it, groups the size of a dime with 4 rds consistanly if you take your time. That rifle cost more than an AR full price.

IndianaBoy
May 31, 2009, 01:02 AM
Finally, I doubt that varmint hunters need you to come to their rescue...

:rolleyes:

No I would wager not.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v239/gnieman/coyote_mange.jpg

I shot that one in particular because it was suffering. If it makes any of you feel any better I shot that one with a bolt rifle chambered for a cartridge that is nearly 75 years old.



Some guys don't seem the get the point I was making, but that really isn't relevant to the original poster's question. No sense in wrestling with a pig any longer I suppose.

sarduy
May 31, 2009, 01:08 AM
Why an AR over a good bolt gun?

simple....

you got 30 rounds of rock-n-roll just a button push away. :evil:

http://www.huntersmark.com/_Media/dsc01497_large.jpeg

H2O MAN
May 31, 2009, 08:41 AM
flyboy1788


I cant believe any self-respecting gun enthusiast doesnt have a bolt-gun.
Maybe we should get all of the THR members to donate one dollar and get him a bolt gun or an AR so he can finally experience true joy.

I appreciate your offer, but true joy is a few M14 variants built by Smith Enterprise, Inc.

I sold off my last AR a few months ago and have no interest in a bolt gun.
However, my interest in lever guns is growing and my 1895G project is moving forward :evil:

Art Eatman
May 31, 2009, 09:48 AM
When threads get to be more about person-to-person snark and less about the reasons for an opinion on the thread subject, closure is imminent.

Polar Express
May 31, 2009, 03:14 PM
Wow, take a couple days off of the forum, and watch the thread grow!
I'm happy to see people discussing this topic, in mostly respectful posts.

Armed Bear, Sorry for the late reply. At the conclusion of post #56, you wrote you posed the question 'what is your point?'. A fair question, it shows that I did not communicate well enough. I'm sorry for that.

I think it all comes down to opinions:
what is fun?
what is our citizen responsibity?
what is cost-effective for us?
what do I want to do with it?
... and many others.

I offered a couple of examples that I am aware of, or participate in.

The jeep I referenced is not practical for transportation. Its great at providing entertainment. But it's a trailer queen, and just barely 'street legal'. I have no dilustions otherwise. I would no sooner take a cadillac in the forested mountain trails of the PNW, than I would try use my jeep to commute to work, it's quite 'single purpose'. You're right, one CAN fish from a bank, beach, tube, rowboat or 35" cruiser. Take your pick. I accpet that in your opinion, real men don't need a boat. I notice by your title, you are in ID. Wonderful place, I hope to move there someday (really, I do), but I also know honorable, Godly men that like to fish for saltwater bottom fish. That's their opinion. You need to be on a boat to do that.

Some here have listed they love to shoot competetivly. Well, depending on the type of shoots they do, perhaps the AR platform is best. Perhaps not. Maybe a shotgun is the best choice.

I guess I could sum up my point that we all have opinions. Everyone's is different. No one person's is better or worse than anothers'. I try hard (sometimes I fail) to remember that idea, in all walks of life.

Now, we take those different opinions, and add in the economics laws as a mulitiplier, and you get what we have now. Lots of new buyers running out and buying ARs, and the support supplies, and current owners adding to their inventory.

So, why an AR over a good bolt gun? Because the buying public out there have an opinion the AR platform is better for what they want to do. Maybe they just want to have one to look at, or so they preserve the option to shoot it for the future, or ??????

Arbor
May 31, 2009, 03:26 PM
Because
a. I can
b. I want to

That's really 'nuff said :D It's a free country right?

RockyMtnTactical
May 31, 2009, 03:32 PM
It's a free country right?

Yeah, for the time being. Hope it stays that way...

Reid73
June 1, 2009, 10:28 AM
I sold off my last AR a few months ago and have no interest in a bolt gun. However, my interest in lever guns is growingThere's hope for you yet! :) Try a Sako Finnwolf or Winchester 88, and you will have all the advantages of a bolt-action in a lever-action package.

I cant believe any self-respecting gun enthusiast doesn't have a bolt-gun.For "bolt-gun", one could credibly insert "K-22", "Colt Peacemaker", ".22 rifle", "side-by-side 12 gauge", "Thompson 1928", ".50-70 Sharps", "flintlock Kentucy rifle", "Mauser C96" ... and the list goes on. Apparently the true firearms enthusiast needs a big budget, a huge safe, and a tolerant spouse!

J99
June 1, 2009, 12:21 PM
they both have a purpose a bolt can simply be chambered in a bigger cartridge for a cheaper price, but a semi-auto is crazy fun to shoot and on the off chance that you happen to miss you have a quick second shot ;)

I'l use mine, if the pagan hordes come thundering up my mountain.

you will have no time to grab it :p they already have a song for their inevitable victory

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyvPe0uqjjY

woof
June 1, 2009, 12:35 PM
There are two boards for handguns, one for auto and one for revolvers. Why can't the same happen for rifles? Clearly the people in each rifle category have little in common. I'd have no use for the semi auto forum and the AR people would have no use for the.... let's call it manual action rifle board. Brilliant!

H2O MAN
June 1, 2009, 12:43 PM
...manual action rifle board...

My semi automatic MK14 SEI Mod 0 becomes a box fed bolt action rifle whenever I fire sub sonic ammo through my sound suppressor :evil:

TexasRifleman
June 1, 2009, 12:50 PM
My semi automatic MK14 SEI Mod 0 becomes a box fed bolt action rifle whenever I fire sub sonic ammo through my sound suppressor

I can turn the gas wide open on my FAL and make it bolt action, do I get to go in both forums?

The fact that we're seeing this internal fighting is why we get screwed when bans come up.

Remember Zumbo?

We are all on the same side don't forget.

Saying stuff like "if you buy an AR you're just playing army" is a Zumbo.

Reid73
June 1, 2009, 01:27 PM
The Zumbo controversy was much ado about nothing.

Everyone should feel free to voice their opinions without having to worry about the 'party line'. Groupthink (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink) is dangerous, and the first amendment is no less important than the second

JShirley
June 1, 2009, 01:32 PM
Godly

What does this have to do with anything firearms-related? Keep your religion off the board. (http://www.thehighroad.org/code-of-conduct.html)

John

Joe Demko
June 1, 2009, 01:33 PM
The 1st Ammendment played no role whatever in Zumbo's well deserved destruction.

TexasRifleman
June 1, 2009, 01:38 PM
Groupthink is dangerous, and the first amendment is no less important than the second

The Zumbo thing has absolutely nothing to do with the First Amendment. The 1st protect speech from interference by the government.

Gun owners, outraged by his statements, made their opinions known and he was crushed for saying it.

That is not a First Amendment case in any fashion.

You may feel that Zumbo was wronged, but that has nothing to do with the First Amendment.

Reid73
June 1, 2009, 01:50 PM
Yes, I am aware of that. I was using an analogy.

I take it that we can all agree that freedom of expression is an important right and should not be unduly curtailed by public or private action. No one should be "crushed" for voicing their opinion, despite the fact that other people may vehemently disagree with it.

RockyMtnTactical
June 1, 2009, 02:29 PM
No one should be "crushed" for voicing their opinion, despite the fact that other people may vehemently disagree with it.

So not true. Zumbo represented gunowners and when he betrayed the gun owning public by stating that AR15's were "terrorist" rifles he made a huge mistake. He has an obligation to gunowners being in the position he was in, as a sponsored gun writer.

He has the right to voice his opinion, but we also have the right to boycott him and his sponsors for voicing an opinion that was detrimental to gun owners.

Nobody denied him his 1st amendment right. Denying him his 1st amendment right would be censoring him or throwing him in jail for voicing his opinion. Instead he dealt with the consequences by the public that he represented and many in the outside of the gun world thought he spoke for.

I vote with my wallet all the time. It's the American way.

TexasRifleman
June 1, 2009, 02:34 PM
No one should be "crushed" for voicing their opinion, despite the fact that other people may vehemently disagree with it.

Oh, that's so completely untrue. If Disney corporation publicly announces they hate Blacks, Jews, and Women, should their business suffer? Should customers ignore that?

Zumbo was an employee, or paid writer at least, of a publication. That publications customers demanded the publication not print his drivel anymore.

What's the difference?

Should Zumbo be given a public forum in a publication whose customers have said they don't want to hear it?

Just doesn't work that way.

And as regards this discussion here, the infighting between gun owners will be exploited by the antis so anyone that promotes that kind of thing is an anti in my book.
If you don't like ARs? Keep quiet. Dont' like black powder? So what, no reason to shout it from the rooftops. Why the need to bad mouth another gun owner for liking something that you don't?

ArmedBear
June 1, 2009, 02:39 PM
I take it that we can all agree that freedom of expression is an important right and should not be unduly curtailed by public or private action.

Nobody tried to stop Zumbo from expressing himself. People let magazines know they would cancel their subscriptions. Refusing to give money to someone who supports an expression with which you disagree is, itself, a form of expression.

I do not owe Zumbo, or anyone else, a penny, to provide them with a platform to voice opinions I find abhorrent. I do not owe any magazine a penny, ever, for any reason.

I also find the very existence of PBS and NPR abhorrent in an ostensibly free country.

No one should be "crushed" for voicing their opinion, despite the fact that other people may vehemently disagree with it.

Nobody "crushed" Zumbo. Again, nobody OWES HIM A LIVING.

Personally, I wouldn't ever be interested in what he writes -- not as a political statement at this point, but because someone who displays such a total lack of critical thinking on a lot of levels can't be writing much that I want to waste my time reading.

taliv
June 1, 2009, 03:13 PM
looks like we're a long way from bolt gun vs AR now.

If you enjoyed reading about "Why an AR over a good bolt gun?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!