If anyone might be reading this with a similar mindset, let me offer a logical response.
When first introduced, the AR platform was not well liked. For clarification, AR stands for Armalite, not assault rifle. The M-16, first issued to US troops in the 1960s, was selected to replace aging rifles for a few reasons. First, the M-14 was considered hard to handle in full automatic fire. It was heavy, and the large caliber was considered to be overkill. The standard caliber for rifles in WWII was .30-06, an excellent choice for long range accuracy, but not truly necessary for close quarters urban and jungle warfare like we saw in Europe and the Pacific. The lighter .30 Carbine that was also in use at the time proved to have significant ballistic limitations. It wasn't as accurate at longer range, and had limited penetrating capability.
This is what spurred the adoption of a new rifle and caliber. Ultimately, the M-16 was selected for reasons of economy. The 5.56 NATO round was more accurate and penetrated better than the .30 Carbine, but it was lighter than the .30-06, allowing a soldier to carry more ammunition at the same weight, and it has less recoil, making the weapon easier to control. There were criticisms that the round was too small compared to the Soviet 7.62x39 used in the AK-47, which we were facing, but some of the top brass saw this as a benefit. The 5.56 was more likely to inflict "survivable injuries." The idea was that dead enemy need only be replaced. A wounded enemy needed to be replaced AND cared for, putting a greater drain on enemy resources. There were also reliability issues with early designs. Over the years, these have been systematically addressed and largely eliminated.
This all points to the military adoption of the platform, so how does this effect civilian ownership? Simply put, soldiers don't stay soldiers forever. When they return to civilian life, if they choose to own a firearm, it is only natural that they choose one they are comfortable with. Every soldier knows how to maintain his rifle. He knows how it handles. That is what spurred the creation of the civilian AR-15. It has the outward appearance of a military arm, and the controls and internal mechanisms are very similar. There is one key difference, though. The civilian variant is not a selective fire weapon. It does not have fully automatic or burst fire capability. In time, even non-military shooters came to appreciate the AR platform for one reason, modularity. There are so many options for customizing an AR, that a new shooter can be totally overwhelmed. They can be built with any goal in mind. Some people choose a minimalist approach to create the lightest rifle possible. Others build for extreme long range accuracy. The possibilities are endless. People who shoot ARs love the ability to swap parts and try new configurations without having to go to a gunsmith.
So there you have it. The AR is economical, customizable, accurate, and low recoiling. What more could you ask for in a firearm?
What would your choice be for that? 7.62x51mm, or something with better aerodynamics, like a 7mm round? Or something big and overpowered like 338 Lapua? Or some choice not fitting into any of those categories?
This all points to the military adoption of the platform, so how does this effect civilian ownership? Simply put, soldiers don't stay soldiers forever. When they return to civilian life, if they choose to own a firearm, it is only natural that they choose one they are comfortable with.
Also happened with motorcyles after WW2 and Harley Davidson
The tale of the creation and adoption of the M16 is super interesting and hilarious, due to all the army politics and even sabotage at times. Although I think the AR15 came first and was then adopted by the USAF and finally the Army.
Yeah, I should have clarified, "M-16" is just the military designation that was applied to the AR platform. It's not actually the manufacturer's terminology. The AR was created, chosen by the military, and then a civilian, semi-auto only version was released. And you're right, it was first employed by the USAF. It was initially meant as a replacement for the M1 Carbine, which saw heavy use among paratroopers, tankers, and air crews. It served alongside the M-14 for a while, but as the AR platform was refined and the M-14 was phased out, it became the standard issue weapon.
If anyone might be reading this with a similar mindset, let me offer a logical response.
When first introduced, the AR platform was not well liked. For clarification, AR stands for Armalite, not assault rifle. The M-16, first issued to US troops in the 1960s, was selected to replace aging rifles for a few reasons. First, the M-14 was considered hard to handle in full automatic fire. It was heavy, and the large caliber was considered to be overkill. The standard caliber for rifles in WWII was .30-06, an excellent choice for long range accuracy, but not truly necessary for close quarters urban and jungle warfare like we saw in Europe and the Pacific. The lighter .30 Carbine that was also in use at the time proved to have significant ballistic limitations. It wasn't as accurate at longer range, and had limited penetrating capability.
This is what spurred the adoption of a new rifle and caliber. Ultimately, the M-16 was selected for reasons of economy. The 5.56 NATO round was more accurate and penetrated better than the .30 Carbine, but it was lighter than the .30-06, allowing a soldier to carry more ammunition at the same weight, and it has less recoil, making the weapon easier to control. There were criticisms that the round was too small compared to the Soviet 7.62x39 used in the AK-47, which we were facing, but some of the top brass saw this as a benefit. The 5.56 was more likely to inflict "survivable injuries." The idea was that dead enemy need only be replaced. A wounded enemy needed to be replaced AND cared for, putting a greater drain on enemy resources. There were also reliability issues with early designs. Over the years, these have been systematically addressed and largely eliminated.
This all points to the military adoption of the platform, so how does this effect civilian ownership? Simply put, soldiers don't stay soldiers forever. When they return to civilian life, if they choose to own a firearm, it is only natural that they choose one they are comfortable with. Every soldier knows how to maintain his rifle. He knows how it handles. That is what spurred the creation of the civilian AR-15. It has the outward appearance of a military arm, and the controls and internal mechanisms are very similar. There is one key difference, though. The civilian variant is not a selective fire weapon. It does not have fully automatic or burst fire capability. In time, even non-military shooters came to appreciate the AR platform for one reason, modularity. There are so many options for customizing an AR, that a new shooter can be totally overwhelmed. They can be built with any goal in mind. Some people choose a minimalist approach to create the lightest rifle possible. Others build for extreme long range accuracy. The possibilities are endless. People who shoot ARs love the ability to swap parts and try new configurations without having to go to a gunsmith.
So there you have it. The AR is economical, customizable, accurate, and low recoiling. What more could you ask for in a firearm?
That's nice, but in combat or home defense, I don't usually care about anything outside of 200 yards.
That's because you're not an girl between the age of 4 and 12.
That's dangerous spicy, pede. Goes well with the cheesy nachos.
Sounds like we could all use bigger homes
When you break into a house and realize you're on the far end of a shooting range...
D:
What would your choice be for that? 7.62x51mm, or something with better aerodynamics, like a 7mm round? Or something big and overpowered like 338 Lapua? Or some choice not fitting into any of those categories?
It's like everyone is prepping.
Also happened with motorcyles after WW2 and Harley Davidson
The tale of the creation and adoption of the M16 is super interesting and hilarious, due to all the army politics and even sabotage at times. Although I think the AR15 came first and was then adopted by the USAF and finally the Army.
Yeah, I should have clarified, "M-16" is just the military designation that was applied to the AR platform. It's not actually the manufacturer's terminology. The AR was created, chosen by the military, and then a civilian, semi-auto only version was released. And you're right, it was first employed by the USAF. It was initially meant as a replacement for the M1 Carbine, which saw heavy use among paratroopers, tankers, and air crews. It served alongside the M-14 for a while, but as the AR platform was refined and the M-14 was phased out, it became the standard issue weapon.
Let me offer you a simpler explanation. Anyone looking at these women and upset that they're heavily armed is a gang rapist.
Binary Trigger + Bump Stock