Bought my first AR today

skfullen said:

If I could only own ONE rifle it would be an AR15.
I do not hunt with an AR, but it is the platform I chose to intercept a trespasser on my land and escort him off my property.
I trained with an AR platform (and a Beretta) when I served this country and I am comfortable and competent with it.
I'm a free American and will not be told what I can and cannot own/posess.
To the OP, congratulations on your purchase.

Click to expand...

Thank you for your service!

@dcon what scope did you order?

Monac said:

Could I ask why? I have owned guns for 40+ years, and I have never wanted to own an AR.

Click to expand...

Because he wanted one.

Monac said:

Thank you for your chart, which graphically illustrates the danger of abandoning politics in favor of violence. The countries on your list show what happens when using guns replaces the rule of law. The United States is not in that position now

The last time that happened here was in 1860, when a bunch of single issue fanatics decided that the results of a presidential election were unacceptable to them, and started a civil war.

Just to make things clear, you are the one quoting political reasons for AR ownership.

Click to expand...

I think your reasoning is totally backwards and tragically misinformed but maybe that's just me.

My son just bought my rifle AR from me and he has already ordering new parts for it.

Monac said:

OK, just NRA slogans. I thought there might be a real reason.

Click to expand...

There are many reasons besides political ones. I am retired military and really never had the urge to hold another M16 but after a few years nostalgia got the best of me and decided I wanted one. I found it a great way to graduate a child from shooting a BB gun to a 22 rimfire to the 5.56 and so on. Ammo is cheap and recoil is basically non existent. But eventually I realized I wanted or needed one to level the playing field, you know that old cliché fight fire with fire.

I hunt in West Texas, large isolated areas where cell phones do not work and along the Mexican border where many unsavory humans cross, whether it is a humble immigrant seeking a better life or a filthy peace of trash being a mule for the cartel. Though my 30-06 may shoot further than the AR-15 it only holds 4 rounds in the magazine. If we happened to run into some unsavory mules I would totally be outgunned. Don't consider the AR-15 the plague of shooting sports or firearms but nothing more than a tool, as all my firearms are. From my Sharps 1874 rifle to my BB gun.
Oh, BTW it is my right.

To the OP, congratulations on your purchase. Unless you plan on shooting prone a lot I would not recommend a bi-pod, save the money for better optics or iron sights.

Monac said:

Thank you for your chart, which graphically illustrates the danger of abandoning politics in favor of violence. The countries on your list show what happens when using guns replaces the rule of law. The United States is not in that position now, and I don't know why it should become that way. Do you?

The last time that happened here was in 1860, when a bunch of single issue fanatics decided that the results of a presidential election were unacceptable to them, and started a civil war.

Just to make things clear, you are the one quoting political reasons for AR ownership.

Click to expand...

The charts show that countries that have highly regulated or banned firearms have then trampled on the rights of the subjects to the point of democide or genocide. Those countries never abandoned politics, and their "rule of law" became oppressive and murderous. The politics became corrupt and oppressive.
Unless a total anarchy, no country ever "abandons" politics. Countries by definition have a political system, either benign, or repugnant and oppressive .... often somewhere in between the two extremes.
As for reasons to own an AR-15, in a free society, one is able to choose to own, or not own, any type of rifle they choose. Are those reasons political? If the buyer buys one because "POLITICS", maybe so. So what?

Gun ownership? I believe that is a RIGHT in this country - at least according to the 2nd Amendment.
The last time I checked, the AR was a "gun". I choose to own one. You choose not to. You are free to give up your RIGHT if you would like.
I won't question your RIGHT to own the gun of your choice. Don't question mine.

Monac said:

Could I ask why? I have owned guns for 40+ years, and I have never wanted to own an AR.

Click to expand...

Well, because we addicts are all "enablers" []

More realistically, because the AR is a bit of an ergonomic miracle. It has very subtle engineering elegances. The magazine is a straight-in/straight out design, that will drop free. It's a very in-line platform that shoulders up into a Natural Point of Aim that has to be seen to be admired. The controls are readily to hand for right handers in as-designed mode, or either hand if built ambi. It will accept nearly every sort of sighting system, and in combinations as well. It's really a peak level of technology.

There's a reason we are still using it after 50 years, and that's not nostalgia or huge volume of surplus.

And the more of y'all that have a couple of laundry tubs of excess and spare parts the more 'normal' i look []

OP, I'm new to the AR scene too. My first was a Sig M400 with a Romeo 3 red dot sight. I recently gave it to my son. I now have a Aero Precision lower with a Odin Works 6.5 Grendel. I just put a Leupold 3x9 scope on it. I have a bore sight on the way then I will get the scope sighted in and have some fun. It sucks that ammo is so hard to find so I will probably not shoot as much till that changes a little. My first experience was with the M16 in the Air Force.

I was skeptical of the AR at first, and it’s still growing on me. I don’t think I’d be a failure if I didn’t have one and I understand the reason they’re popular beyond the practical side of operating one. It is the 21st century equivalent of the smoothbore musket.

I got one for three reasons.
1 - I had a lot of 223 brass I found and wanted to start reloading a modern rifle
2 - The AR is the iconic rifle of our era. It’s where the interest and innovation are now.
3 - I could build it from a kit (the open source rifle). That made it a year long journey.

The way I shoot I’d be as well suited by a bolt action. I have standard 30 rd magazines but I rarely use them; the 10 rd ones are better at the range.

AR 15 is easy to shoot. Endlessly adaptable. Lots of fun. Easy to assemble. Light. Heavy. Can fire different cartridges. Accurate. Low recoil. It is Americas rifle. It is no different than any other magazine fed semi auto rifle. Congratulations op enjoy your rifle. Start your next one!!!!

BreechFace: Thanks very much for that condensed chart.

I sent a photo of that to four friends, although they are pro Sec. Amendment. The father of one of them served (non-combat role) in the Third Reich Wehrmacht.

The iron sight distance on a friend's "Green Box" (-yes-) '85 Colt AR are so nice with that 16" barrel.

Monac said:

Could I ask why? I have owned guns for 40+ years, and I have never wanted to own an AR.

Click to expand...

I'm 42 and just bought my first AR this year. I've always been a bit like you about them, not really seeing a practical purpose to them. But I've come around. You can't beat it for home/property protection even though I recognize how unlikely those scenarios are. They're fun, essentially no recoil, accurate and you could use them for deer size game in a pinch (556/223 - I realize other AR calibers are more suitable for hunting).

I'm almost 66 and just bought my first in the past year. Gave that one to my son so bought another one, 6.5 Grendel. Just need ammo now. If anyone feels sorry for me and has plenty of ammo, I will give you my address.

IdaD said:

I'm 42 and just bought my first AR this year. I've always been a bit like you about them, not really seeing a practical purpose to them. But I've come around. You can't beat it for home/property protection even though I recognize how unlikely those scenarios are. They're fun, essentially no recoil, accurate and you could use them for deer size game in a pinch (556/223 - I realize other AR calibers are more suitable for hunting).

Click to expand...

Forget ARFCOM. It has become a crap site. Just get the Army M16 manuals and go from there.

Monac said:

OK, just NRA slogans. I thought there might be a real reason. Thanks for the explanation.

Click to expand...

There is a "real reason". What you deride as "just" an "NRA slogan" is actually a core finding made by Justice Scalia and the majority in Heller:

"We may as well consider at this point (for we will have to consider eventually) what types of weapons Miller permits. Read in isolation, Miller’s phrase “part of ordinary military equipment” could mean that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected. That would be a startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on machineguns (not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional, machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939. We think that Miller’s “ordinary military equipment” language must be read in tandem with what comes after: “[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful purposes like self-defense. “In the colonial and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same.” State v. Kessler, 289 Ore. 359, 368, 614 P. 2d 94, 98 (1980) (citing G. Neumann, Swords and Blades of the American Revolution 6–15, 252–254 (1973)). Indeed, that is precisely the way in which the Second Amendment ’s operative clause furthers the purpose announced in its preface. We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. That accords with the historical understanding of the scope of the right, see Part III, infra.25" (Emphasis added)

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

Monac said:

Could I ask why? I have owned guns for 40+ years, and I have never wanted to own an AR.

Click to expand...

I was the same way for close to 50 years. Our club would have its yearly military rifle shoot, and I thought it would be nice to have something for it but never did get around to making a purchase. I always seemed to be more interested in other aspects of the shooting sports. Besides that, I never was all that thrilled with what I used to call the "varmint rifles" I was issued back in 1967-1969 while in country. I had no desire for one until I saw those two laying on the ground after the San Bernardino shootings.

That just flipped a switch within me and made me realize that if the terrorists were armed with them, I should be also. It was just simple logic. Maybe it brought back the remembrance of only have 5 20 round magazines for our M16s during Tet when we thought there was a good chance our small compound might be overrun and I put on a machete. Maybe it was time to have something with serious capabilities in case society became too violent. Maybe it was the "Be Prepared" boy scout motto resurfacing. It doesn't really matter though. As men, we must always be ready to defend our loved ones and our country. Pretty simple really.

luzyfuerza said:

There is a "real reason". What you deride as "just" an "NRA slogan" is actually a core finding made by Justice Scalia and the majority in Heller:

"We may as well consider at this point (for we will have to consider eventually) what types of weapons Miller permits. Read in isolation, Miller’s phrase “part of ordinary military equipment” could mean that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected. That would be a startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on machineguns (not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional, machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939. We think that Miller’s “ordinary military equipment” language must be read in tandem with what comes after: “[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful purposes like self-defense. “In the colonial and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same.” State v. Kessler, 289 Ore. 359, 368, 614 P. 2d 94, 98 (1980) (citing G. Neumann, Swords and Blades of the American Revolution 6–15, 252–254 (1973)). Indeed, that is precisely the way in which the Second Amendment ’s operative clause furthers the purpose announced in its preface. We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. That accords with the historical understanding of the scope of the right, see Part III, infra.25" (Emphasis added)

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

Click to expand...

The Heller case stated that the second amendment does cover "modern guns."
The part you quote in bold may be what is held in the law, but it is specious and illogical given the intent and meaning of the second amendment.
"....The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" speaks to that which the government is forbidden to do, mainly, to infringe on a pre-existing right. This mainly comes down to the meaning of "infringe." To "infringe" means to intrude into, or to diminish, or to otherwise undermine.
If one can not intrude into, one may not touch or alter. If you are forbidden to intrude into, say, a room, you cannot go in. You can't dust the furniture. You can't vacuum the rug. Likewise, diminish should be even more obvious. If something is this big>O, then you cannot reduce it to this big>o.
It ought not matter how common such arms are, or how useful they are. The court's argument is contrary to the meaning of the second amendment. The Founders themselves believed "the deadliest implement of the soldier is the birthright of an American," and there is plenty of their writings, in THE FEDERALIST PAPERS to document their beliefs.

The Miller case itself was adjudicated only shortly after the NFA and the few fully automatic weapons included the B. A. R. and the 1921 Thompson Submachinegun. I don't think they could be said to be in common use (the Tommygun was a commercial failure), so the ..... "logic" ( ) of Miller seems solipsistic, or, only intended to preserve a situation or condition that self-justified the law/Miller Case itself.

The above is only my opinion. The NFA is still the law and I am NOT recommending anyone violate it!!

Tommygunn said:

The NFA is still the law and I am NOT recommending anyone violate it!!

Click to expand...

Meh, I would. So long as a person was smart about their ownership of a regulated or otherwise prohibited weapon, who would ever know?

Fact of the matter is, it takes about 12 years to gain the ability to practice law, and a very specific type of law. It takes (depending on your state) 3-8 months to enforce the law. It takes ZERO experience or knowledge to pass laws; hell, in most states you dont even need to graduate high school.

When wolves started being a problem in Montana we used to shoot a ton of them, and that was unfortunate because a few years later they made them legal to hunt. Do your business, but if you get hemmed up that's on you.

I bought my AR-15 in 2012, sighted it in and haven’t shot it since. I’m very glad I have it though and absolutely will not sell it.

It’s obvious I’m not an AR expert but I have always had the impression Anderson AR’s are pretty good.

If OP's experience is anything like mine, this will be the first of many.

I've got a cousin who's an avid coyote hunter. Built his rifles based off the Remington 700 action. Thought AR's were heavy, ugly, useless rifles, would never own one.

He was given an aero precision upper/lower and some other pieces. Decided to see how soft shooting he could make one shoot, using his cast bullets. He ordered a BCA barrel and ended up milling it down to pistol length gas and was satisfied with how it functioned.

Next he wanted to see how light of a load he could use in a valkyrie. I loaned him an upper, he had it damn near 6 months. Loved it. Built his own valkyrie, now he's working on a 300 herret. He's hooked and a believer now.

I bought my first one back in July. An Anderson Arms .In my opinion the design is ingenious in its simplicity.. The controls are instinctive and the disassembly for cleaning and parts replacement is easy.

Bought my 3rd last week. I have 1 set up for DMR type shooting, or perhaps varminting if I can get a good load for it. 1 is an AR10 set up for longer range shooting and working on a 175 gr SMK load. The most recent will be a dedicated iron sighted version for up to 300 yards.

I'd never shot one before a couple years ago. I was surprised at how accurately it shot for a novice, but my only reference was an older 30-30 that wasnt even sighted in yet.